Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Program

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]

LAFO.URCHE. PARISH.
\(@oastal Zone Management Program

Jtl

HT VOLUME II
393
.L82
L34 ..oastal Zone Management
1983
v.2
-in Lafourche Parish -
;_Au

LAFOURCHE PARISH

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

VOLUME II - COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT IN LAFOURCHE., PARISH

REPORT OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ADVISORV COMMITTEE AND
LAFOURCHE PARISH PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO THE LAFOURCFR PARISH
COUNCIL

PREPARED BY EDWIN J. DURABB, PLANNING DIRECTOR, IN.-CONJUNCTTON
WITH THE LAFOURCHE PARISH CZM ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The preparation of this report was financed in part through a
grant from the U.S. Department of Commerce under the provisions
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.

NOTICE

"This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the
Loui*-siana Department of Natural Resources in the interest of
information exchange. The State of Louisiana assumes no
liability for its contents or the use there of."

TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv

Lafo urche Parish CZM Advisory Committee Members v

Chapter I: An Overview of the Federal and State
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
The Federal CZM Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Louisiana CZM Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Chapter II: The Local Program:.An Overview . . . . 30
Introduction . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . 30
Elements of the Local Program . . . . . . . . . 31
General Coastal Zone Policies . . . . . . . . . 33

Chapter III: Permitting and Permit Monitoring: The
CZM Management Tool . . . . . . . . . 38
The Lafourche Permit Program . . . . . . . . . 42
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Chapter IV: Environmental Management Units 52
Introduction . . . . . . * * * . . . 52
Land Use Classification for Lafourche Parish
Environmental Management Units . . . . . . . 58
DescriDtions and Policies . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Delta Farms . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . 71
North Little Lake . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Bayou Pointe-Au-Chien . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Bully Camp . . . . . * * ' * * * ' * ' * * * ' 8P
South Lafourche A B)C . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
Clovelly Faxms . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Clovelly . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 103
Raccourci . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lli
Golden Meadow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
South Barataria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ins
Leeville . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
Timbalier . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138
Four'chon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143
Caminada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
Resource, Resource Users; and Conflicts . . . . 154

US Department of Commerce
NOAA Coastal Services Center Library
2234'South Hobson Avenuo
Charlestont SC 29405-2413

Chapter V: The CZM-Ordinance . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Article 1 - Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Article 2 - Title . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - 10-5
Article 3 - Definitions . . . . .. . . . . . . 166
Article 4 - Permitted'Uses . . . . . . . . . . 170
Article 5 - Administration . . . . . . . . . . 172
Ar.ticle 6 - Permit Procedure and Formal Require-
ments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
Article 7 - Permit Procedure and Administrative
Action . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
Article 8 - Term of Permit : . . . . . . . . . 12) 0
Article 9 - Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . 181
Article 10 - Emergency Uses . . . . . . . . . . 182
Article 11 - Appeals . . . .. . . . . . . . . . 184
Article 12 - Modifications, Suspensions, and
Revocations ... . . . . . . . . . 135
Article 13 - Penalty . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
Article 14 - Amendment . . . . . . . . ... . . 188
Article 15 - Severability . . . . . . . . . . . 190
Article 16 - Consistency . . . . . . . . . . . 191
Article 17 - Annual Report . . . . . . . . . . 192
Article 18 - Effective Date ... . . . . . . . . 193

Appendix i.: Information Base for CZM Program lr25

Appendix ii: Proceedings - Lafourche Parish Coastal
Zone Management Advisory Committee 207

Appendix iii: Lafourche Coastal Zone Management
Program Approval Documentation . . . 250

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE PAGE

3.1 Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Boundary @9

3.2 Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . . 41

3.3 Permit Evaluations, Uses of Local Concern 45

3.4 Permit Flow Chart, Lafourche Program 46

3.5 Permit Evaluation, Uses. of State Concern . . . 47

4.1 Development Corridors . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

4.2 Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone . . . . . . . . 68

4.3 Delta Farms, North Little Lake.E.M.U. Map . . . 70

4.4 Bayou Pointe-Au-Chien, South Lafourche C,
and Bully Camp E.H.U. Map . . . . . . . . . .

4.5 South Lafourche A, South Lafourche B,
Clovelly, Clovelly Farms E.M.U. Map . . . . . . 100

4.6 Raccourci, Golden Meadow E.H.U. Map . . . . . 112

4.7 South Barataria, Leeville E.M.U. Map . . . . . 124

4.8 Timbalier, Fourchon, Caminada E.M.U. Map . . . 11337

4.9 Projected Shoreline Retreat 1980 - 2030 . . . 157

4.10 Major Vegetative Communities of Fourchon
Island . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

LIST OF TABLES

TARTY PAGE

4.1 Environmental Management Units:
Laf ourche Parish . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

4.2 Classification of Lafourche Parish
Environmental Managements Units . . . . . 57

LAFOURCHE PARISH COASTAL-ZONE MANAGEMENT
ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS

AS OF DECEMBER 20, 1982

Caroll Adams Horace Thibodaux

Gerald Bordelon Mark Daire

Windell Curole Vince Guillory

Ted Falgout Gerald Louviere

Perry Gisclair

LAFOURCHE PARISH CZM STAFF

CZM Coordinator Ed Durabb, Planning Director

Typing - Connie Doran, Secretary

Drafting - Sandi Aymond, Student Draftsperson

Printing - Susan Burleigh,'Public -Services Coordinator

This author also wishes to gratefully acknowledge the logistical
and financial support provided to the Coastal Zone Management
Project by Parish President, Dick Egle, without whose committ-
ment the program would not have been possible.

INTRODUCTION

Volume II of the Lafourche Parish report outlines the

essence of the coastal management effort envisioned by

Lafourche Parish under the state program.

Chapter I is a series of excerpts from the Final En-

vironmental Impact Statement for the Louisiana CZM Program

and outlines the federal and state CZM Program.

Chapter II is an overall summary of the parish CZM

effort.

Chapter III describes in detail how permitting and

permit monitoring, the administrative management tools of

CZM will work.

Chapter IV outlines the description, criteria and

policies for the sixteen Environmental Management Units

of Lafourche Parish. These policies and descriptions pro-

vide the primary guidance for the@ permitting-program.

Chapter V presents the proposed parish CZM Ordinance.

This ordinance adopts the program described in this report

and briefly establishes the permitting program, sets permit

fees, etc. necessary to implement coastal management in

Lafourche Parish.

Finally, the three appendices provide information on

the technical materials available for CZM in Lafo urche

Parish, a description of how the program was formulated as

outlined in the minutes of our CZM Advisory Committee,. and

CZM program approval documentation.

It is felt that this program meets all the criteria set

out in the state CZM legislation and as interpreted by the

Coastal Management Section of the Louisiana Department of

Natural Resources as-well as addresses our local coastal

problems.

It is hoped that this program can be the springboard in

Lafourche Parish to adequately address the pressing problems

that threaten coastal Louisiana and Lafourche Parish.

CHAPTER I

AN OVERVIEW OF TFE FEDERAL AND STATE PROGPAM

Introduction

The following is an outline of the Federal Coastal Zone

Management Act as excerpted from the Final Environmental Im-

pact Statement pertaining to the Louisiana = Program, pre-

lared by the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and the

Federal Office of Coastal Zone Management.

THE FEDERAt CZY PROGRAM.

in response to intense pressure,. and because of the im-
portance of coastal areas of the United States, Congress passed
the-Coastal Zone Management Act (P.L. 92-583) (CZMA) which was
signed into law on Octobe:r 27, 1972. The CZMA authorized a -
federal grant-in-aid program to be administered by the Secretary
of Commerce, who in turn, delegated this responsibility to the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Office
of Coastal Zone Management (OCZ11). The Coastal Zone Management
Act of 1972 was substantially amended on July 26, 1976, (P.L.
94-370). The Act and the 1976 amendments affirm a national
interest in the effective protection and development of the
coastal zone by providing assistance and encouragement to
coastal states in developing and implementing rational program
for managing their coastal areas.

Broad guidelines and the basic requirements of the CZMA
provide the necessary direction to states for developing
coastal management programs. These guidelines and requirements
for program development and-approval are contained in 15 CRF
Part 923, as revised and published March 2.8, 197S, in the
Federal Register.- In summary, the-requirements for program
approval are that the state develop a management program that:

1. Identifies and evaluates those coastal resources
recognized in the CZMA that require management or
prot ection by the state.

2. Re-examines existing policies or develops new
policies to manage these resources. These policies
must be specific, comprehensive and enforceable,
and must provide an adequate degree of predict-
ability as to how coastal resources will be managed.

3. Determines specific uses and specific geographic
areas that are to be subject to the management
program,' based on the nature of identified coastal
concerns. Uses and areas to be subject to manage-
ment should be based on resource capability and
suitability analyses, socioeconomic considerations
and public preferences.

4. Identifies the inland and seaward areas subject to
the management program.

S.. Provides for the consideration of the national
interest in planning for the siting of facilities
that meet more than local requirements.

6. Includes sufficient legal authorities and or7ani-
zational ir-,-angements to implement the program and
to insure ctonf ormance to it

In arriving at these substantive aspects of the manage-
ment program, states are obliged to follow an open process
which involves providing information to, and considering the
interests of, the general public, special interest groups,
local government, and regional, state, interstate and federal
agencies.

Section 305(c) of the CZY Act authorizes a maximum of
four annual grants to develop a coastal management program.
After developing a management program, the state may submit it*
to the United States'Secretary of Commerce for approval pursuant
to Section 306 of the CZMA. If approved, the state is then
eligible for an annual grant under Section 306 to implement
its management program. If a program has deficiencies which
need to be remedied or has not received approval by the time
Section 305 program development grants have expired, a state
may be eligible for preliminary approval and additional fund_
ing under Se&-'on 305(d). Louisiana was awarded a Section
305(d) grant on May 1, 1979.

Section 307 of the CZMA stipulates that federal agency
actions shall be consistent, to the maximum 'extent Practicable,
with approved state management programs.- Section 307 further
provides for mediation by the United States Secretary of
Commerce when a serious disagreement arises between a federal

agency and a coastal state w'ith respect to a federal con-
sistency issue.

Section 308 of the CZMA contains several provisions for
grants and loans to coastal states to enable them to P lan
for response to onshore impacts resulting from coastal energy
r activities. To be eligible for assistance under Section 308,
coastal states must be receiving 305 or 306 grants, or, in the
secretary's view, be developing a management program consis-
tent with the policies and objectives contained in Section
303 of the CZMA.. Section 308 has been important to Louisiana.
The state has received $1,340,288 in planninF funds, $43.7
million in grants and $32.1 million in loans for financing
new or improved facilities and public services, and $778,000
in funds to help prevent, reduce or ameliorate unavoidable
losses to valuable zoastal environmental and recreational
resources.

Some of the projects funded with Section 308 monies in-
clude equipment for a hospital in Lafourche Parish, a fresh
water siphon in St. Bern.ard that will help to retard saltwater
intrusion, and a planning grant for port development in Iberia
Parish.

The National Environmental Policy Act of.1969 re-
quires that an environmental impact statement be prebared as
part of the review and approval process of major actions by
federal agencies which significantly affect the quality of
the human environment. The action contemplated here is
approval of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program under
Section 306 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act of
1972, as amended.

Approval qualified Louisiana for federal matching funds
for use in implementing and administering the coastal manage-
ment program. In addition, the Coastal Zone Management Act
stipulates that federal activities affecting the coastal zone
shall be consistent, to the maximum extent practicable, with
the approved coastal management program.

It is the general policy of the Office of Coastal Zone
Management (OCZM) to.issue a combined final environmental im-
pact statement (FEIS) and coastal management program document.

For purposes of reviewing the Louisiana program, the im-
portant federal concerns were:

- whether the Louisiana program was consistent with the
objectives and.policies of the national legislation

- whether the award of federal funds under Section 306
of the CZMA will help Louisiana meet those objectives

whether the state's management authorities were ade-
quate to implement the Louisiana Coastal Resources
Program (LCRP); and

whether there will be a net environmental benefit as
a result of program approval and implementation

The Louisiana program met the objectives and concerns of

the Federal reviewers and has received final approval fo r

implementation.

LOUISIANA CZM PROGRAM

Introduction

The following explanation of the Louisiana Coastal

Resources Program is excerpted from the Final Environmental

Impact Statement for that program prepared by the Louisiana

Department of Natural Resources and the Federal Office of

Coastal Zone Management. The excerpt i s intended only to

provide the reader-with an.overview of the state Coastal

Zone Management Program.

For a more complete explanation of that progran, the reader

should refer to the Final Environmental Impact Statement.

Louisiana's Response - Act 361

Louisiana's response to the pressures and problems-of the
coastal zone came in the form of legislative action.. The basis
for a comprehensive coastal policy, planning, and management
program became law in Louisiana in the summer of 1978 when Act
361, the State and local Coastal Resources Management Act of
1978, was signed. Despite a tangled legislative battle in which
some 400 amendments to the bill were proposed, the CZM package
which finally emerged from the Legislature is one which eqabled
Louisiana to continue receiving federal funds under the provisions
of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. More importantly,
the Act provided the mechanism by which competing and conflict-
ing coast-al uses can be coordinated and balanced by state and-
local governments. Act 361 provides for the following:

1. General Policy

Seven broad statements of public policy Preface the sub-
st-antive provisions of the Act and point to the divergent
interests sought to be accommodated by the CMI legislation.
While seeking to protect and, where feasible, restore or
enhance coastal resources, the state also seeks to develop,
support and encourage multiple use of the resources, while

maintaining and enhancing renewable resources, providing
adequate economic growth and minimizing adverse effects
of one resource use upon another without imposing any un-
due restriction on any user.

2. Guidelines

In order to implement the general policies, guidelines
developed under the Act are the key to determining the
parameters of the coastal management program. The guide-
lines must be followed in the development of state and
local programs and will serve as the enforceable criteria
for the granting, conditioninjr, denying, revoking, or
modifying of coastal use permits.

3. Boundary

Act 361 also defines the boundary of the coastal zone. The
coastal zone is bounded on the east and west by the re-
spective Mississippi and Texas borders, on the south by
Louisiana's three mile seaward. boundary, and on the north
generally by the Intracoastal Waterway running from the
Texas-Louisiana state line then following highways through
Vermilion, Iberia and St. Mary parishes, then dipping
southward following the natural ridges below Houma, then
turning northward to take in Lake Pontchartrain and ending
at the Mississippi-Louisiana border. Recent amendments to
Act 361 expanded the coastal ELrea in certain portions of
Lafourche, St. James, St. Charles, St. John the Baptist,
St. Mary, and Livingston Parishes.

4. Special Management Areas

Act 361 provides for the establishment of areas of partic-
ular concern and areas for preservation and restoration.
Act 361 states that any person or governmental body can
nominate an area as a special management area if it can
be shown that.the area has unique and valuable character-
istics that need specl'al management. Louisiana also has
named two areas of particular concern: the Louisiana
Superport and Marsh Island. The Louisiana Superport was
designated for special management*because of its unique
problems and the existence of its environmental protec-
tion program. Marsh Iiland was chosen because it has an
important role as a wi@idlife refuge and barrier island.

In 1979 two amendments to Act 361 were passed which relate
to special management areas. One amendment directed the
Secretary of the Department of Transportation and Develop-
ment to identify detexiorating coastal areas and provide
steps to prot6ct them including a pilot-program to create

artificial barrier islands. A second amendment calls for
preparation of a state plan for freshwater and sediment.
diversion- projects to offset land loss and saltwater en-
croachment in coastal wetlands. These two amendments
will further help the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program
(LCRP) enhance the state's coastal resources.

5. Authorities and Organization.

Act 361 provides the basic authority, organization, and
structure for the state program. Act 361 defines those
uses that are to be managed and provides direction and
goals for develo'pment,of guidelines that will be used in
making permit decisions and approv#g local programs.
The organizational structure'in Acf 361 directed the
Secretary of Department of Transportation and Develop-
ment to administer the program and develop"the guidelines
in conjunction with the Secretaries of Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries (DWF) and Department of Natural
Resources (DNR).

"On July 6, 1984 Governor Edwin Edwards signed into law
amendments to Act.361. These amendments abolished the
Louisiana Coastal Commission and provided for the creation,
membership and functions of the Louisiana Coastal Advisori
Council; provided for reconsideration of coastal zone deci-
sions by the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources;
and provided for judicial review of the Secretary's final
decision."

In receat years, the State of Louisianahas undertaken the
cumbprsome task of reorganization. Foreseeing the day
when the coastal management program might be subject to
reorganization efforts, Act '361 empowered the Governor
to transfer authority for the program. Section 213.21 of
the Act provides that the authority originally vested in
the. Secretary of the Department of Transportation and#
Development might be transferred by the Governor's order
to the Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources
or the Secretary of the Department-of Wildlife and Fish-
eries.

On July 8, 1980, Governor David C. Treen transferred the
authority for the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program from
the Secretary of Department of Transportation and Develop-
ment (DOTD) to the Secretary of Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) by Executive Order 80-15. the move was
made to consolidate environmental resource responsibilities
within the State and the need to expedite and streamline
the permit process. DNR is now the lead agency for im-
plementation of the Louisiana Coastal Resources Program.

6. National Interest
The United States Congress, ia enacting 'the Coastal Zone
Management Act of 1972, found that,_ 11 ... there isa
national interest in the effective maaagement, beneficial
use, protection, and development of the coastal zoae.11

The Act further requires that states adequately consider'
the national interest in the development and implementation
of approved.1state coastal management programs. The
Louisiana. Coastal Resources Program (LCRP) has utilized
full participation by federal.agencies in determining the
national interest in Louisiana's coastal zone. Louisiana
recognizes that coastal issues and concerns reflect a
national interest in national defense, energy and other
facility siting and certain resource protection issues
such as wetlands managgment and the protection of rare
and endangered species.

Coastal Use Guidelines

The Legislature recognized when it enacted Act 361 that
existing constitutional and statutory provisions were insuf-
ficient to provide the-policies and criteria necessary to
guide management decisions in the coastal zone.- The Legis-
lature, therefore, provided for the promulgation of coastal
use guidelines in Section 213.8 of Act 361. It is worth
noting at this point, however, that the guidelines will serve
primarily as the substantive standards and criteria for the
f ollowing purposes:

o DNR issuance of coastal use permits for
activities subject to the state coastal
use permit system

o Office of Conservation, Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources issuance of in-lieu per-
mits

o DNR review and approval of local coastal
programs

o Local government issuance of coastal use per-
mits subject to a coastal use permit s7stem
administered pursuant to an aDproved local plan

o Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and in
certain instances gubernatorial review of the
activities of state agencies, local governments
and deep water ports for consistency with the
Louisiana Coastal Resources Program (LCRP)

o DNR gubernatorial review of the consistency of
the actions of federal agencies with the LCP-P
pursuant to the federal Coastal Zone Management
Act (CZMA) Section 307, in addition to other
state policies incorporated into the LCPP

Louisiana Coastal Zone Boundaries

The Louisiana coastal zone boundary as described by Act
361 and subsequent amendments complies with the requirements
of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). All is-
lands, beaches, salt marshes, wetlands and areas necessary
to control uses which have direct and significant impacts on
coastal watersare included in the Louisiana coastal zone.
(Section 923.31-923.33, Federal Program Approval Regulations).
The original boundary as described in Act 361 has been revised
three times.. The first modification, which was provided for
in the Act, allowed for minor revisions in the boundary to
follow corporate limits of municipalities which were originally
divided. The second revision of the coastal zone bouvdary
came in 1979 when the legislature amended Act 361 to include
all of St. James, St. John the Baptist, St. Charles parishes,
a larger portion of Livingston Parish-, and port-ions of
Lafourche, St. Mary and Assumption parishes. The third re-
vision came in 1980 when the Legislature amended Act 361 to
include a. portion of St. Martin Parish, which became effective
as of September .12, 1980.

Inland Boundary

The following is a general description of the inland
boundary based on the boundary defined tn Act 361. The inland
boundary for the State of Louisiana contains all or part of
nineteen parishes: in general, this boundary begins at the
state line of Texas and Louisiana.and in the west and proceeds
easterly through the parishes of Calcasieu and Cameron then
south through Vermilion, Iberia, St. Mary, St. Martin, AssumDtion,
Terrebonne and Lafourche. The boundary then turns to the north
to include the parishes of St. Charles, St. John the Baptist,
St. James and then east again through Livingston, Tangipahoa.
and St. Tammany parishes to the Mississippi state line. The
only parishes whose boundaries are completely within the coastal
zone are the parishes of Orleans, Jefferson, St. Bernard, St.
John the Baptist, Plaquemines, St. James and St. Charles.

Interstate Boundaries

The eastern lateral boundary of the coastal zone for pur-
poses of this program is the Louisiana-Mississippi state line.
The boundary is as defined by the U.S. Supreme Court decision
rendered in the case of the State of Louisiana vs. the State
of Mississippi, 201 US 1 (1906).
The western'lateral boundary of the coastal area for pur-
poses of this program is the Louisiana-Texas state line as
defined by the U.S. Supreme Court decision rendered in the case
of the State of Texas vs. the State of Louisiana, 431, US 161
(1977).

Coastal Zone Boundaries in Adjoining States

Neither Texas nor Mississippi currently have approved
coastal zone management programs. The Final Environmental
Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Mississippi Program is
currently being prepared. The Texas program has received
preliminary approval under Section 305(d). Under both
these programs, the coastal zone inland boundary would in-
clude the first tier of counties along the coast.
Louisiana has consulted and coordinated with-,both Texas
and Mississippi over the adjoining boundaries to ensure
that all common resource areas are being managed compatibly.

Seaward Boundary

The seaward boundary of the coastal area for purposes of
this program is the outer limit of the United States terri-
torial sea. The seaward limits, as defined'in this section,
are for purposes of this program only and represent the area
within which the state's management program may be authorized
and financed. These limits are irrespective. of any other
claims Louisiana may have by virtue of the Submerged Lands
Act or any changes that may occur as a result of the operation
of Fisheries Conservation and Management Act of 1976.

Excluded Federal Lands
In- accordance with Section 304(a) of the Coiu'3tal Zone
Management Act of 1972, all federal lands owned, leased, held
in trust or whose use is otherwise subject solely to the dis-
cretion of the federal government are excluded from the
Louisiana coastal zone. However, any activities or projects
which are conducted within these excluded lands that have direct
effects on the lands or water of Louisiana's coastal zone are
subject to the consistency provisions of the federal Coastal
Zone Management Act (CZMA).

Organizational Responsibilities for

Program Implementation

Organizational responsibilities for implementation of
the Louisiana -Coastal Resources Program are based Qh the
authority granted by Act 361. In order to understand the
organizational provisions of the state program, it is necessary
to understand the entities which administer the pr-ogr,= and
their relationship to the Department of Natural Resources
(DNR),.the state agency designated by the Governor pursuant
to the provision of Section 213.21 of Act 361 to administrate,
the LCRP. The following are state and-local organizational
responsibilities as provided for by Act 361.

1. The Department of Natural Resources

The major organizational component of Louisiana's Coastal
Resources Program is DNR and its Coastal Management Section
established-by Section 213.6 of Act 361. DNR's responsibilities.
concerning the development and implementation of the LCPP are
as follows:

Administration of Federal CZM Programs - DNR is the designated
s,tate agency for administration of Sections 305, 306, 307 and
308 of the Coastal Zo*ne Management Act (CZ11A). In this capacity,
DNR administers Management Program Development Grants (CV1A,
Section 305), Administrative Grants (CZMA, Section 306), Federal
Consistency (CZMA, Section 307) and the Coastal Energy Impact
Program (CEIP) (CZMA, Section 308). The Secretary of DNR deter-
mines which projects, among those eligible, will be funded with
CEIP monies allocated to Louisiana under the federal CEIP pro-
gram.

Development of Coastal Use Guidelines DNR is responsible, in
conjunction with Department of Wildlife and Fisheries (DWF) and
Department of Transportation and Development (DOTD), for de-
velopment of coastal use guide-lines pursuant to Section 213.8
of the Act.

Implementation of Coastal Use Permit Progr - Department.of
Natural Resources (DNR) will issue permits, monitor permitted
uses to ensure compliance, and recommend enfordement measures
for violations under the state coastal use permitting-program.
In this capacity, DNR is requiredto develop rules and regu-
lations for various permitting functions, including permit
Procedures, Section 213.11(B); emergency actions, Section
.213.11(F); general permits, Section 213.11(E)-, and exemptions,
Section 213.15(B)

Delineation of Uses of State and Local Concern - DNR is respon-
sible, in conjunction with the secretar-i'e-s-3-f-DWF and DOTD, for
the development of rules for the further delineation, classifi-
cation, modification, and change of classification of uses of
state concern an.d. uses of lo cal concern, Section 213..5(C).

Development and Review of Local Coastal Programs DNR is re-
spon-,-,ible for the orderly development, review, approval and
administration of local coastal programs pursuant to Section
213.9(B), (D).

Provision of Assi:�tance to Local Governments DNR is respon-
sible for providing financial and technical assistance to local
governments to develop, implement, and-administer local coastal
management programs pursuant to Section 213.9(J) of the Act.

Designation and Management of Special Areas - DNR is respon-
sibLe for the development of rules Tor tne identification,
designation, and utilization of special areas and the esta-
blishment of guidelines or priorities of uses in each area
pursuant to Section 213.10(B) of the Act. In addition, DNR
is responsible for providing financial and technical assis-
tance to local governments for special projects and special.
areas pursuant to Section 213.10(E) of the Act.

Boundary Delineation - DNR is required to adopt a fully
delineated and mapped coastal zone boundary, including vol-
untary amendments to follow the corporate limits of any
municipality divided by the boundary pursuant to Section
213.4(D) of the Act.

Consistency Determinations The Secretary is responsible for
making determinations whether permits issued by or activities
conducted by state and federal agencies are consistent with
the state program and approved local program pursuant to
Section 213.3(C) of the Act. However, consistency determina-
tions involving activities carried out under the Secretary's
authority shall be made by the Governor.

Review of Deepwater Port Activities - DNR will ensure that the
activities of deepwater ports, which do not require a coastal
use Permit, are consistent with the. LCRP mad affected approved
local programs pursuant to Section 213.12 of the Act.

Shoreline Indexing and Freshwater Diversion Planning - DNR is
responsible for implementing Me critical wetland, coastline
and barrier islaad-indexing system'-- barrier island projects
and freshwater diversion plans pursuant to Section 213.10(G)
and (F) of the Act.

Development of Coordinated Permit Process - DNR is required to
deveL0P a coordinated permitting process in cooperation with
other governmental bodies, pursuant to Section 213.14(B) of
the Act.

Provision of Staff for the Louisiana Coastal Advisory Council -
DNR is responsible For proViding staff funcTions for The
Louisiana Coastal Advisory Council pursuant to Section 213.7(A)
of the Act as amended by Act 408 of l984.

Research and Planning - DNR is to conduct investigations, studies
planning and research pursuant to Section 213.6(B)(2) of the Act.

2. The Former Louisiana Coastal Commission

The Former Louisiana Coastal Commission (Former LCC or
Former Commission) was established by Act.361 as an independent
body within the Department of Natural Resources with staff
functions being provided by DNR. The Former LCC was responsible
for a broad range of activities,relating to both the development
and implementation of the LCRP.

In setting forth the composition of the former LCC, the
Legislature !3ought to ensure the representation of'a broad
range of local government, state agency and private economic
and social interests. The Former LCCwas composed of 23 mem-
bers, one appointed by each of the local governing authorities
of the parishes of Cameron, St. Tammany, Vermilion, Iberia,
St. Mary, Terrebonne, Latourche, Jefferson, Plaquemines, St.
Bernard, and Orleans. In addition, the Governor appointed 11
members representing the following interests: the oil and
gas industry; agriculture and forestry; commercial ffshing
and trapping; sport fishing, hunting and outdoor recreation;
ports, shipping and transportation; preservation and environ-
mental protection; coastal landowners; municipalities; the
utility industry; producers of solid minerals; and industrial
development. The Secretary of the Department of Wildlife and
Fisherieswas a voting member.
Of the Governor's appointees, onew" from'Caleasieu Parish;
one from St. Charles Parish; one from St. John the Baptist; one
from Tangipahoa Parish; and one from St. James Parish. All
appointments by the Governor to the Former Coaunission had to be
confirmed by the Senate. Local governments and the Governor
had also appointed an alternate for each of the members that
they appoint. All members of the Former Commission served a-@..
the pleasure of the appointing authority.. Their terms were
for two years. The former LCC was required to meet as often
as necessary to conduct its business, but not less frequently
than once every three-months. A quorum consisted of at least
12 members of the f 'ormer Commission. The primary functions
of the former Commission were as follows:

Developmpnt of Coastal Use Guidelines - The former LCC played
an important role in development o e coastal use guidelines
by having the authority to approve or disapprove guidelines.
Only those guidelines approved by the former LCC,, or, follow-
ing rejection by the former LCC, by the Natural Resources
Committees of the Legislature or the Governor' pursuant to the
review and approval process set out in Section 213.8(B) of the
Act, would become part of the LCRP.
Appeals of Permit Decisions Made Under..t'he State Program and
Approve-d-Lo-cal Programs - The former L= was the appeals body
for coastal use perFl-t-decisions made by the DNR or local
governments with approved local programs pursuant to Section
213.7(A) of the Act.

Approval of Local Programs - The former LCC was the appeals body
for decisions of t Secretary on the approval of locul programs
pursuant to Section 213.7(A) and 213.9(G) of the Act.

Guidelines and Priorities of'Uses in*Special Areas - The former
LCC reviewed the specific guidelines and prioriET-es of uses for
special areas designated pursuant to Section 213.10(B) of the
Act.

Uses of State and Local Concern, - The former LCC was the appeals
bocty-T-or clecislons as to wrietrier'a proposed use was a use of
state or local concern pursuant to Section 213.'11(C)(1) of the
Act.

Periodic Review-of Guidelines. - The former LCC could act as a
Teview boara-To recommena--c=anges in the program guidelines to
insure that the program functioned efficiently =d fulfilled the
goals for which it was developed.

Periodic Review of the Program - The f ormer LCC could act as a
pu511c sounding Mara foFF-T-ef-Tew.of the administration of the
LCRP. This could provide for ongoing review of the program to
ensure that it functioned efficiently a'nd,accomplished the goals
of balancing conservation and cievelopment.

"The Louisiana Coastal Advisory Council, which replaced the
Louisiana Coastal Commission as of July'6, 1984, is also composed
of twenty-three members. The make-up of the Council is the same
as the LCC-12 parish members and 11 members appointed by the
Governor. The functions of the Council are as follows:

1. Advising the Secretary of his approval of Coastal
management guidelines pursuant to Section 213.8 of
the Act, as, amended.

2. Advising the Secretary of his approval of the indenti-!
fication, designation, and utilization of special
areas and the guidelines or priorities of use for
special areas pursuant to-Section 213.10, as amended.

3. Recommending procedures or measures for the reduction,
'of overlapping efforts, activities or actions by
various state and local agencies, when requested to do
so by.the Secretary.*

4. Recommending future coastal management activities
guidelines, and/or special areas when requested'to' do
so by the Secretary.
5. Providing' advice and/or recommendations upon or support
for any aspect of the coastar management program as
requested by the Secretary.

The Coastal Advisory Council does not have authority to
adopt rules or regulations or issue permits or orders. It has
-no authority to enforce the aforementioned provisions, nor can
,it bring lawsuits on behalf of the state to enforce statutes
or regulations.

3. Local Governments

Act 361 provides parishes located within the coastal.zoue
a unique opportunity to play an important role in further
development and implementation of the LCRP. Parishes are
authorized, though not required, to develop local coastal man-
agement programs for approval by DNR pursuant to Section 213.9
of the Act. Once its local program is approved., a pari-sh may
administer the coastal use permitting program for uses of local
concern proposed within the parish and receive implementation
funding from the state on a matching fund basis- provided under
Section 213.9(J). State agencies are also required to coordinate
with the local governments with approved programs to assure,
that their actions affecting the coastal zone axe consistent
with the local programs pursuant to Section 213.13(B) of the
Act. Federal agencies must also ensure that their actions are
consistent with such programs (Section 307, CZMA). Moreover,
coastal use permits issued by DNR and in-lieu permits issued
by Office of Conservation, Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources (OC/DNR) must also. be consistent with approved local
programs. In summary, while local government participation in
the LCRP-is not required by Act 361, the participation of most
parishes in the development of the LCRP to date and the benefits
from further participation noted above indicates that most,
not all, parishes will seek to develop local coastal progra.-..

4. State- Agency Roles

Several state.agencies, in addition to the DNR, will play
key roles in the implementation of-the LCRP, These include
new roles for the Department of Transportation and Development
and Wildlife and Fisheries prescribed by Act 361 and pre-exist-
ing responsibilities which have been incorporated into the LCRP
by DNR pursuant to Section 213.13 of Act 361.

14a

Act 361 provides the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries
(DWF) and Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with specific
functions in the LCRP development process. The Secretaries of
-DWF and DNR participated with DOTD in the development and re-
view of the coastal use guidelines'pursuant to Section 213.8(C)
of the Act. DWY and DNR also participated with DOTD in develop-
ing rules for further delineation and modification of the list
of uses of state concern or local concern which will be sub-
ject to the coastal use permit program.

In cooperation with DNR, both DOTD and DWF will partici-
pate in determining whether-the activities of, and permits
issued by, certain other state agencies are consistent with
the state program and approved local program, pursuant to
Section 213.12(D) of the Act. The Office of Conservation of
the Department of Natural Resources (OC/DNR) will also be
responsible for the issuance of in-lieu,permits pursuant to
Section 213.12 of the Act.

Act 361 also provides for inclusion of existing state
regulatory and nonregulatory programs into the LCRP in order
to achieve the overall"purposes of the Act. The following are
summaries of existing state agency responsibilities for the
programs that will be included in the LCRP.

Department of Natural Resources (DNR.) - DNP has primary re-
sponsibility for the conservation, management, and develop-
ment of water, minerals, timber, and other natural resources
of the state, for the ackrinistration and supervision of state
lands and for air and *ater quality, solid and hazardous
waste management and nuclear-energy and radiation control.
Within this department, but retaining independent authority
and control over their functions, are the Commissioner of
Conservation in the Office-of Conservation, the State Mineral
Board in the Office-of Mineral Resources, and the Environ-
mental Control Commission in the Office'-of Environmental
Affairs.

Department of' Transportation and DeveloDment (D=) - The
Department of Transportation and Development's activities in
the coastal zone include th-e construction of state highways,
handling of public works projects, settingstandards of water
wells and comment authority on pipeline crossings and ob-
structions of levees.

Department of Wildlife an d Fisheries (DWF) - In addition to
the roles and responsibilities provided by Act 361, the De-
partment of Wildlife and Fisheries has primary responsibility
for the control and supervision-of the wildlife and fisheries
of the state, including the management, protection, conser-
vation and replenishment of wildlife, fish and aquatic life;

the management of wildlife management areas, refuges and pre-
serres; aquatic weed control.: scenic rivers; shell dredging;
and the granting of oyster leases.

Department of Health and Human Resources (DHHR) - This de-
partment shall be primarily responsible for the development
and providing of health, medical, and social services.. for
the prevention of disease and for certain aspects of pro-
tecting the environment, including oyster and shell fish
cont.ro-!,, sewage disposal, noise, and noxious odors.

Department of Culture, Recreation and Tourism (DCRT) This
department shall have primary responsibility for the develop- Jr,
ment, maintenance, and operation of library, park,.recreation,
museum, and other cultural facilities; the statewide develop-
ment and implementation of cultural, recreational, and tourism
programs; and planning.for future leisure needs. DCRT's
responsibilities for protecting archaeological and historic
sites in the coastal zone will be coordinated with the LCRDE.
t
Department of Public Safety (DPS) - DPS's responsibility for
certain aspects of pipeline safety will need to be coordinated
with the,LCRP.
t

Methods of Program Implementation

1. The Coastal Use Permit Program

Act 361 provides for the development of the coastal use
permit program as the principal means of implementing the
policies contained in the Act and the coastal use guidelines
developed pursuant to the Act. The coastal use permit program
will be implemented by both DNR and local governments. Ini-
tially, the coastal use permit program will be implemented-
entirely by DNR, with local governments assuming a portion of
the permit resp'onsibilities as their local coastal programs
.are approved-by DNR.

In addition to mandating the development of the coastal
use guidelines, Act 361 requires the development of additional
substantive and procedural rules related to, among other things,
the implementation of the coastal use permit program.
Uses Subject to the Coastal Use Permit Program to
Act.361 provides guidance as to whether uses are subject
the coastal use permit process, whether such uses should be uses
of state or local concern, and identifies a.set of activities
which are exempt from the coastal use permit process.
t

Eon,
16 1

Section -013.(3) of Act 361 defines a "use" subject to the
coastal permit program as "any use or activi-tv within the
coastal zone which has a direct and significant impact on
coastal waters.- "Coastal waters" are defined in Section
213.3(3) to include:

"Bays, lakes, inlets, estuaries, rivers, bayous, and
other bodies of water within the boundaries of the
coastal zone which have measurable seawater content
(under normal weather conditions) over a period of*
years."

In order to provide additional guidance to persons under-
taking uses within the coastal area, the DNR has identified
in rulbs @nd procedures for coastal use pern'its, promulgated
pursuant to Section 213.11(B) of the Act, those uses occurring.
within the coastal zone boundary which shall require coastal
use permits or in-lieu permits from the Office of Conservation
of the Department of Natural Resources (OC/DNR) unless exempted
by Act 361 or regulations of DNR. These uses are:

"1. Dredging,or filling-and discharges of dredged or
fill material.

2. Levee siting, construction, operation and maintenance.

3. Hurricane or flood protection facilities, including
siting, constr-action, operat ion and maintenance of
such facilities.

4. Urban development, including the siting, construction
and operation of residential, commercial, industrial
and governmental structures, and transportation
facilities.

5. Energy development activities including siting,. con-
struction and operation of generating, processing and
transmission facilities, pipeline facilities, and
exploration for and production of oil, natural gas,
amd geothermal energy.

6. Mining activities, including surface, subsurface,
and underground mining, geothermal energy, sand or
.gravel mining and shell dredging.
7. 'Wastewater discharges, including point and non-point
sources.

S. Surface water control or consumption, including marsh
management projects.

9'. Shoreline modification projects and harbor structures.

10. Waste disposal activities.
11. Recreation.developments, including Ti_ti-n_g@ -consfr-u-c-Clio'n
and operation.of Ipublic and priv@itf_e recreational fa-
cilities and marinas.

12. Industrial development including siting, construction
and operation of such facilities.

13. Any other activities or projects that would require
a permit or consent from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, the Environmental Protection.Agency or
the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.,

14. Activities which impact barrier islands, salt domes,
cheniers, and beaches.

15. Drainage projects."

Section 213.15 of the Act provides that the following uses,
which normally do not have direct and significant impact on
coastal waters, are exempt from the coastal use permit program,
except as provided for below in items (1) and (2):

111. Activities joccurring-wholly on lands five feet or
more above mean sea level (NGVD) except when the
Secretary.finds that the particular activity would
have direct and sigaiftcaat izbpzcts on coastal waters..

2. Activities occurxing within fast lands except when the
secretary finds.that the particular activity would
have direct and significant impacts on coastal waters.

3. Agricultu--al, forestry, and aquaculture activities on
lands consistently used in the past for such activities.

4. Hunting, fishing, trapping, and the preservation of
scenic, historic, and scientific areas and wildlife
preserves.

5. Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures in-
cluding emergency repairs of damage caused by accident,
fire, or the elements.

6. Uses and activities within the special area established
in Section 213.10(C) which have been permitted by the
Offshore Terminal Authority in keeping with its en-
vironmental protection plan.

7. Construction of a residence or camp.

-8. Construction and modification of navigational aids
such as channel.markers and anchor buoys."

"Fastlands," on which certain activities would be exempt, are
defined in Section 213.3(9) as:

"Lands surrounded by publicly owned, maintained, or other-
wise validly existing levees, or natural formations, as
of January 1, 1979 or as may be lawfully constructed in
the future, which levees or natural formations would nor-
mally prevent activities, not to include the pumping of
water for drainage purposes, within the surrounded area
from having direct and significant impacts on coastal
waters."

Any use or activity which, prior to the initiation of the
coastal use permit program,' has been lawfully commenced in
good faith and for which all required permits have been ob-
tained is consistent -with the Coastal Management Program and
no. coastal use permit is required for it. Moreover, such use
or activity.shall thereafter be consistent with the program
even if renewals of previously issued.permits become necessary
or if new permits are required by other governmental bodies
Provided that there is no significant change in the aature,
shape, size, location or impacts of the use or activity. To
be so-exempted, a. use or activity must have met the follow-
ing requirements prior to the date of the coastal use permit
program:

"I. Actual construction or operation of the use or
activity must have been b6gun, in good faith; and

2. All permits, licenses and clearances required by
governmental bodies must have been obtained and the
use or activity must be in compliance with them; and

3. No significant change in the nature, size, location
or impacts of the use or activity take place."

Act 361 also provides guidance as to those uses which are
most appropriately managed by either the state or local level
of government through the coastal use permit program. Section
213.13 of the Act defines these two classes of uses as "uses of
state concern" and "uses of local concern." Until such time
as local coastal programs are approved by DNR pursuant to the
procedures summarized below, DNR will be responsible for per-
mitting both types of uses. Upon approval of its local program,
a local government will be granted the'authority to issue per-
mits for uses of local concern. The permitting of uses of state
concern, however, remains the responsibility of DNR regardless
of the status of the local program for the area within which a
use is proposed.

"Uses of state concern: Those uses which directly and
significantly affect coastal waters and which are in
need of coastal management and which have impacts of
greater than local significance or which significantly
affect interests of regional, state, or national con-
cern. Uses of state concern shall include, but not be
limited to:

(a) Any dredge or fill activity which intersects with
more than one wazer body.

(b) Projects involviag use of state owned lands or
water bottoms. F
,(c) State publicly funded projects.
(d) Nation -al interes.t :Projects.
(e) Projects OCCUrrilLg in more than one parish.

(f) All mineral activities, including exploration for
and production of, oil, gas, and other minerals,
all dredge and fill uses associated therewith,
and all other associated uses.

(g) All pipelines fo:r the gathering, transportation or
transmission of oil, gas and other minerals.

(h) Energy facility siting and development..

(i) Uses of local concern which may significantly affect
interest of regional, state or national concern."

Uses of local concern are defined and listed in Act 361,
Section 213.5(A)(2) as:

"Uses of local concern: Those uses which directly and
significantly affect coastal waters and are in need of
coastal management but are not uses of state concern
and which should be regulated primarily at the local
level if the'local government has an approved program.
Uses of local concern shall include, but not be limited
to:

(a) Privately funded projects which are not uses of
state concern.

(b) Publicly funded projects which are not 'uses of
state concern.

(d) Jet ties or breakwaters.
ir
20

(e) Dredge or fill projects not intersecting more than
one water body.

(f) Bulkheads.

(g) Piers.

(h) Camps and cattlewalks.

(i) Maintenance dredging.

(j) Private water control structures of less than S15,000
in cost.

(k) Uses on cheniers, salt domes, or similar land forms."

in order to provide for the orderly determination of
whether a proposed use is a use of state or local concern in
cases where a use is proposed in a parish with an approved
local program and there is unsufficient guidance contained in
the above statutory languaze, Section 213.5(C) and 213.11(C)
of the Act provide for the development of rules by DNR setting
forth procedures for the determination as to whether a proposed
use is a use of state or local concern. Pursuant to the leg-
islative policy set forth in Section 213.11(C)(1), the initial
determination shall be made by the local government, subject to
review and approval of the administrator of the Coastal Manage-
ment- Section of DNR, whose determination may be appealed by
the local government to the LCC. Criteria are as follows:

"(a) The specific terms of the uses as classified in the
Act,

(b) The relationship of a proposed use to a particular
use classified in the Act,

(c) If a use is not predominately classified as either
state or local by the Act or the use overlaps the two
classifications, it shall be of local concern.unless
it:

1. Is being carried out with state or federal funds,

2. Involves the use of, or ha-e; significant impacts
on, state or federal lands, water bottoms or
works

3. Is mineral or energ' production and transportation
related

4. Involves the use of, or has significant impacts on,
barrier islands or beaches or any other shoreline
which forms part of the baseline for Louisiana's
offshore jurisdiction,

5. Will result in major changes in the quantity or
quality of water flow and circulation or in
salinity or sediment transport regimes, or

6. Has significant interparish or interstate im-
pacts.

The Local Coastal Management Program Development and*Approval
Process

Section 213.9 requires that the DOTD develop and adopt,
after notice and public hearing, rules and procedures for the
development, approval, modification and periodic.review of
local programs. Section 213.9(C) provides that:

The rules and proceduies adopted pursuant to this Section
shall be consistent with the state guidelines and shall pro-
vide particularly, but not exclusively, that:

"l. Local government, in developing local programs, shall
afford full opportunity for municipalities, state and
local government bodies, and the general public to
participate in the development and implementation of
the local program.

2. A public hearing to receive comments on a proposed
local program shall be held in the area to be sub-
ject to the program by the local government proposing
the program or its duly appointed local committee.

3. A lo'cal program developed under this Section shall be
consistent with the state guidelines and with the
policies and objectives of this part and particularly,
but not exclusively, consist of:

(a) A description of the natural resources and the
natural resource users of the coastal zone area
within the parish, the social and economic needs
within particular areas of the coastal zone of
the parish, and the general order or priority
in which those needs which directly and signifi-
cantly affent coastal waters should be met
within the coastal zone of the Parish.

(b) Procedures to be used by the local government to
regulate uses of local concern.

(c) Special procedures and methods for considering
uses within special areas, uses of greater than
local benefit, and uses affecting the state and
national interest.

The Coastal Use Permit Process

One of the purposes and goals of Act 361 is to expedite
the permitting process by cutting red tape. Most applications
should be processed and the-decision upon them-rendered within
a 45-day period; those requiring a public hearing and those
the decisions upon which are appealed will take a longer
period. The permit review Process is typical of many such pro-
cedures; however, it is to be conducted within a limited time
frame. The following is a brief summary of the permit process.

Permit applications are submitted to DNR or a local govern"
meat with an approved program. If it is submitted to the local
government, a copy is sent to DNR.within two (2) days.

Within 10 days of receipt of an application, DNR will give
public notice of the application, distribute copies to'appro-
priate state, federal and local agencies and request public
and governmental comment. The decision as to whether a public
hearing should be held will be made during the comment period.
If the application is found to be incomplete or inaccurate
after the review has begun or if additional information from
the applicant is necessary in evaluating the application, the
processing will be stoppea until the information is providede

The application will then be reviewed for compliance with
the guidelines, the other laws and.regulations incorporated into
the LCRP) relevant local programs and other aspects of the LCRP.
A field inspection may be made. Within 30 days of the p ublic
notice or within 15 days after-the-public hearing, a decision
to approve or deny the permit must be made. If the permit is'
proposed,to be granted, a draft will be sent to the applicant'
for his acceptance of the permit conditions. Upon return of
the signed draft and signature by the permitting official, the
Permit is issued. Public notice of the decision on the Per-
mit is given.

Within 30 days after public notice of the decision, the
applicant, the Secretary of DNR, any affected local government
or affected local, state., or federal agency, an "aggtieved
person" or any person adversely affectid by a decision may
petition for recoasideration to the Secretary in, writing within
ten days following public notice of a final 'coastal use permit
cr local program approved decision. The Secretary will reader
a decision upon the reconsideration within fifteen days of its
receipt. As final recourse, procced;Lngs for review may be
instituted by filing a-petition in t'he district court of the
parish in which the proposed use is to'be situated within thirty,
days after mailing of notice'of the final decision by the
Secretary or, it a reconsideration is requested, within thirty
days after the decision thereon. The courts mu t give the case
"preference and priority" and allow trial:,de, n,ovo at the request
of the party.

Program Implementation and Monitoring

The DNR is currently refining the administrative mecha-
nisms necessary to implement the coastal'use permitting
Process. These efforts include increasing the size of the
staff of the Coastal Management Section of DNR and the
-establishment of procedures whereby the Department of Wild-
life and Fisheries (DWF) and Department of Natural Resources
(DNR) staff will assist in program implementation and
monitoring.

The staff of the Coastal Management Section is currently
being expanded with plans calling for a doubling of in-house
professional and clerical staff prior to program implementa-
tion. Current plans also call for legal assistance to be
provided to the Coastal Management Section by both DNR's
legal section and the LSU Sea Grant Legal Program.

The Secretary of DNR is directed in Section 213.6(B)(3)
of Act 361 to systematically monitor and conduct surveillance
of permitted uses to ensure that conditions of coastal use
permits are satisfied. To..&COomplish this, the LCRP has-con-
tracted with DWF to develop a process to conduct field
investigations by'traiaed,personnel to determine if the
condiLions of the permits have been met. The field personne:ro.
in DWF will also do field investigation of selected permit appli-
cations to provide additio4al information on the proposed site,
'likely impacts and f6asible alternatives. A field.investigation
checklist of relevant environmental indicators is-being developed
by D!VF in conjunction with the technical support group within
the Coastal Management Section of DNR. The. data from these
investigations will be computerized to provide additional sources
of biological and ecological iaformatioa about the coastal area.

Monitoring will also be accomplished through an'agrep-
ment with Office of Conservation of the Department of Natural
Resources (OC/DNR). Presently OC/DNR conducts field investi-
gations.at numerous stages of oil, gas.and mineral exploration,
Production and abandonment activities... In carrying.out their
"in-lieu" permit responsibilities, theie field investigations
will assure that these mineral activities are conducted con-
sistently with the guidelines-. Coastal Management Section,
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources (CMS/DNR) will also
work with state and federal agencies to coordinate the use of
high altitude photography as a means to monitor changes in
coastal land use and environmental conditions.

Enforcement and Penalties

Section 213.7(A) of Act 361, requires the Administrator
and each local government with an approved program to initiate
a field surveillance program to ensure enforcement of the

management program. The LCRP will rely on DwF and OC-DNR to
Provide field personnel that will monitor the coastal area
for compliance to the conditions of the coastal use permit
and for non-complying uses.

The Secretary of DNR and each local government with an
approved program has the authority pursuant to Act 361,
Section 213.17(B) to issue cease and desist orders or sus-
pend, revoke, or modify coastal use permits. Also the
Secretary, the Administrator, the Attorney General or local
governments with an approved program, may bring injunctive
or declaratory actions to ensure that no uses are made of
the coastal zone which have not been permitted or do not
comply with the conditions-of the'coastal use permit.

Section 213.17(E) of Act 361, authorizes the court to
impose civil liability, assess damages, require restoration
or impose other reasonable sanctions for uses conducted with
the coastal zone that have riot received a coastal use per-
mit. The court may also impose a fine of not less than one
hundred dollars ($100.00) or not more than five hundred
dollars ($500.00), or imprisonment for not more than ninety
(90) days, or both for violation of any of the rules and
regulations of the LCRP or terms or conditions of the coastal
use permit.

Civil Enforcement for the LCRP will be,primarily handled
by the Legal Section of DNR. Criminal enforcement will'be
handled by the appropriate district attorney's office.

Other State Permits

As indicated above, several other state regulatory pro-
grams have been incorporated into the LCRP. These programs
will continue to implement their own statutory mandates with-
out direct reference to the coastal use guidelines. Since
most major activities requiring a coastal use permit will
also require one or more.other state permits, the CMS/DNR will,
however, seek to coordinate the coastal use permit review with
the review procedure of other state permits. This coordination'
will include the sharing procedure of other state permits., This
coordination will inilude the sharing of information and the
development of the ccordinated permit process. The major state
permit programs incorporatedin thethe LCRP are summarized below.

Oil, Gas and Mineral Operation Permits - Certain aspects of oil,
gas and other mineral activities in the coastal zone will re-
quire a permit from OC/DNR pursuant to its statutory authority.
Permits for these specific activities will be issued in-lieu of
coastal use permits. Because of the state and national interest
in facilitating energy production while at the same time avoid-
ing or minimizing adverse impacts to coastal resources, these
permits will be closely coordinated with the LCRP at the state
and.local level. Where appropriate, joint applications for
state and federal permits applicable to these activities will
be prepared as part of the LCRP. The Secretary of DNIR has

signed an MOU.with OC/DNR that will facilitate the overall
state permitting process for. these activities.

State Lands Management - The proprietary activities of the
state related to stat;i owned waterbottoms, wetlands, and
other state owned areas often directly affect the coastal
zone. ' When a.state agency conducts its own activities in
the coastal zone, Act 361 requires that it ensure that its
activities are consistent to the'maximum extent practicable
with the LCRP and any approved local program through the
coastal use permit program. Private parties will also need
a coastal use permit whenever the use of state lands direct-
ly and significantly impacts coastal waters.

Air and Wat er Quality Permits - Section 307(f.) of the CZMA
requires th t the federal and state requirements of the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act and the Clean Air Act
shall be incorporated into all state coastal management
programs, and shall be the water pollution control and 'air
pollution control requirements of the state program. The
LCP.P incorporates existing state air and water 'programs as
required.. These programs will be the responsibility of the
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ).

Solid, Nuclear, and Hazardous Waste Permits - Because of the
potential adv rse impacts from activri'll-esrelated to-the
transportation, stordge, and use of waste products on the
coastal zone, the existing state permit programs controlling
these activities have been incorporated into the LCRP. In the
future, these permits will also be the responsibility of DEQ.
It is a primary objective of the LCRP that adverse impacts on
coastal )resources from theseactivit-ies will be avoided or
minimized.

Deepwater Port Activities

Act 361 provides for special procedures for-the management
of deepwater port activities. Section 213.13 provides:
"Deepwater port commissions and d@epwater port, harbor and
terminal districts, as defined in :: Article VI, Sections 43
and 44 of the Louisiana Constitution: of 1974, shall not
be required to obtain coastal use permits. Provided, how-
ever, that-their activities shall be consistent to the
maximum extent practicable with the state program and
affected approved local programs."

Deepwater port commissions and deepwater port, harbor and
terminal districts are defined in Article VI, Section 44(7) of
the 1974 Constitution as "t-hose c ommissions or districts with-
in whose territorial jurisdiction exist facflities capable ;P'f-.
accommodating vessels of at least twenty-five feet of draft and
of engaging in foreign commerce." The only ports in Louisiana
that meet this criteria are: the Port of Lake Charles, the
Port of Greater Baton Rouge, the South Louisiana Port Commission,
26

the Port of New Orleans and the Port of Plaquemines. The Port
of Baton Rouge is entirely outside of the coastal zone. All
activities of the South Central Louisiana Port Commission are
on the Mississippi River. While many activities of tbe Port
of New Orleans are. located on the Mississippi River, they
also conduct extensive activities in the tidewater area, the
Innerharbor Navigation Canal, the Industrial Canal, the
Mississippi River-Gulf Outlet, and.the Gulf Intracoastal Water-
way.

The Coastal Resources Program will utilize two methods to
assure that the actions and activities, of these deepwater ports
are consistent with the Coastal Resources Program and affected
approved local programs. The first is through-the consistency
review procedure provided.for in Section 213.13(D), and the
other through memoranda. of understanding entered into with
port, harbor and commissions when appropriate.

To implement the first method of assuring consistency of
the deepwater port activities, the LCPP will, on an ongoing
basis, monitor port activities including A-95 materials sub-
mitted by ports, to determine if any port activities have not
previously been coordinated with the Secretary. If some are
found to be inconsistent with the LCRP, the Secretary shall
notify the Secretaries of DNR and DWF, and the affected deep-
water port commission, pursuant to 213.13(D) of the ,kct.
Section 21.3.13(D) requires that the port authorities coordinate
with the Secretaries. Comments from the Secretaries must, to
the maximum extent practicable, be incorporated into the action
commented on. If the port authority, does not follow these re-
quirements, mandamus would be available-.

Because of the location and number of activities of the
Port of New Orleans in coastal areas, an interim memorandum
of understanding has been entered into the Port of New Orleans
until such time as, and if, it is designated as a Special Area.
This Memorandum of Understanding provides that the Port will
coordinate with the LCRP staff on activities at early planning
stages and at least prior to requesting permits from other
government al agencies.

The utilization ofthe Special Area. designation is being
seriously considered for the Port of New Orleans because of
the nature of the impacts of port development activities and
plans on coastal areas and because of the critical importance
of the Port to the economy of -@he state. If, in the future,
such a designation would be appropriate for other deepwater
ports, full consideration will be given to such a course of
action.

State and Local Government Activities Directly Affecting the
Coastal Zone

Section 213.13(B) of the Act provides:

"Any governmental body undertaking, conducting, or

supporting activities directly affecting the coasta.1
zone shall insure that such activities shall be con-
sistent to the maximum extent practicable with the
state program and any affected approved local program
having geographical jurisdiction over the action."

Coastal use permits are required for governmental actions
having direct and significant impacts on coastal waters, e.g.
development projects, that occur in the coastal zone, thereby
assuring consistency with the program. However, governmental
actions outside the coastal zone and those exempted from the
coastal use permitting process*are also to be consistent if
they directly affect the coastal zone. These activities will
generally fall into two categories: (1) the governmental
body carries out a development project outside the coastal.-
zone that directly affect the coastal zone, (2) the govern-
mental body funds or plans a development project. Assurance
that these activities are consistent with the LCRP will be-
through two methods.

The first method is agency coordination procedures set
forth in memoranda of understanding between CMS/DNR and other
governmental bodies,.

These MOU's will specify that the other agencies will
conduct their activities consistent with the guidelines and
coordinate with the LCRP at early planning stages to assure
consistency. In this regard, it must be pointed out that
other state laws presently require any state agency con-
ducting activities which affect state-owned water bodies to
coordinate with the Office of Public Works and Department of
Wildlife and Fisheries for engineering suitability and impacts
on wildlife and fishery activities. MOU's with state agencies
Will assure that they will coordinate their review with the
c,uidelines and notify.the LCRP staff of anv activities that
may directly affect the coastal znne.

The second method will be through a review of U.S. Army
Corps of Engineer permits and A-95 materials to insure that
all construction, funding and planning activities of state
and local-governments are consistent with the Coastal Re-
sources Program if they occur in or directly affect the
coastal zone. Private activities funded by the agenc-*.es
which are conducted in the coastal zone will normally re-
quire a coastal use permit, thereby assuring that they are
consistent with the program. The govermental actions are
subject to consistency review pursuant to Section 213.13 B,
C, and D.

Joint State and Corps of Engineers Permitting Process
Upon approval of, -che LCRP, a joint permit process w*ith
the Corps of Engineers will be established for activities
within the coastal zone. The procedures established will
provide for joint applications, joint public notices, pubTic

hea3rings and joint permits. Procedures for the establishment
of a coordinated enforcement program- including a surveillance
and monitoring program., will also be'implemented on approval
of the program. The CMS/DNR and the Corps have tentatively
agreed on a draft memorandum of understanding. The memo-
randum will be completed and signed following federal approval-
of the LCRP.

Coordinated Permit Process

Section 213 ,14(B) of Act 361 directs the Secretary of
DNR, the Administretor, local government and'all other rele-
vant governmental bodies to establish.a. coordinated coastal
permitting process through interagency agreements. DNR will
initiate the development of such a process during the first
year of program implementation. The objective will be to ex-
Pedite and streamline the issuance of coastal use permits and
all other permits or approvals from other governmental bodies
that have separate regulatory jurisdiction 'or authority over
uses of the coastal zone. The coordinated coastal permitting
process would consist of an application form which contains
sufficient information so that all affected governmental
agencies can carry out their review responsibilities, a '16ne
window" system-for applications, one public hearing and a
reduction in the period for permit review.

The*CMS/DNR will also seek to integrate the coordinated
permitting process with a computerized permit tracking sy-
stem to ensure that the evaluation of each application will
be more effective, in terms of time, cost and quality of re-
view.

CHAPTER II
7'

THE LOCAL PROGPAM: AN OVERVIEW

INTRODUCTION

Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management is-designed to

fit with the framework of existing State and Federal CZY

Programs yet be flexible and innovative enough to address

local concerns. With this in mind, portions of the program

address goals, requirements, time frames, etc. built into
the state and federal mindates. However, much of our pro-

gram has been tailored to address Lafourche Parish's erosion

and saltwater intrusion problems, protect our fishing in-

dustry .2:Rd combine to promote our oil, gas, and support

facility expansion within our own coastal wetland areas.

Much work has been done in the last few yea rs by means

of planning grants from the State of Louisiana to utilize

planning consultants and local advisory committees to set up

a local CZM program. Due to changing emphasis at the state

and local level, these efforts have met with only limited

success. Recently, however, the State of Louisiana has

cemented its committment to coastal management by passing

enabling legislation and setting up a functioning state pro-

gram. Under a grant from the State of Louisiana, the

Lafourche Planning Department and an advisory committee of

concerned citizens within the coastal zone of this Parish have

worked successfully inputting together a program to address the

crucial problems affecting the future of the parish wetlands

and indeed, the very survival of the parish itself. The state,

now has a smooth running state program and is ready to accept

a partnership with coastal parishes who are willing to set up

local programs to jointly- protect our local coastal wetlands.

For too long, the parish and the state have been unwilling and/

or unable to regulate what happens in our own wetlands in-

stead relying on spotty federal control*mainly under the auspices

of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service. Now for the lst time, Lafourche Parish and the State

of Louisiana have an opportunity to take back authority over

their own land areas by establishing a responsible CZM Drogr9nn

that will eventually replace the federal regulating efforts in

our wetlands.

The issues are clear. Latourche. Parish is 84% wetlands
and water. We'are losing 3700+ acres of marsh a year, there

is saltwater intrusion that threatens our water supplies, flood-

ing problems are increasing in the parish. There is a.program

opportunity designed to give us (in partne rship with.the state)

the authority and the means to manage our own resources and

solve our own problems. Our participation is voluntary - the

program is Coastal Zone Management. The followinp,, is ades-

cription of our proposals for CZM in Lafourche Parish.

ELEMENTS OF THE LOCAL PPOGRAIM

There are six major elements to the Lafourche CZM Program,

these are:

(1) Goals and Objectives of the Parish Program

(2) Environmental Management Unit Partition and Des-
cription

(3) Objectives and Policies for Management in each F.M.U.

(4) Development of a Permit and Permit Monitoring System

(5) DeveloDment of Management Coordination Mechanisms
with Surrounding Parishes. 4

(6) Development and Passage of a Legal Implementation
Mechanism for the CZM Program

Goals and Objectives

Based on Drevious CZM reports, recent information on the

economy, demography, and physical environment of Lafourche

Parish, the expertise of the CZM Advisory Committee, require-

ments of the state CZIM Proqram, and our own parish needs, the

following general goals and objectives have been adopted for

the Lafourche Parish program:

Goals

Goal 1. Reduce land loss due to marsh destruction, shoreline
retreat, and reclamation

Goal 2. Reduce saltwater intrusion.

Goal 3. Preserve and Drotect estuarine habitat that forms the
basis for the fishing industry from unnecessary destruction from.
man-made activities.

Goal 4. Encourage continued coastal development including habi-
Ta-t-1-on, commercial, industrial, recreational, transportation in
those areas compatible with this type of development and the
goals and objectives of-the CZM program.

Goal 5. Protect unique and fragile habitats within the coastal
zone from degradation and/or destruction

Goal-6. Develop and use a CZM permitting system established for
Lafourche Parish as the primary management tool in the parish C..,4
.
program conforming to all state and local goals and objectives
that govern that program.

Goal 7. For the CZM program manager and the review board to
function as the local implementors of the program in behalf of
the Lafourche Parish Council.

Goal 8. For Lafourche Parish to develop and use a review
Procedure to monitor and com'ment on coastal uses outside
of the parish jurisdiction that may have an impact on the
coastal wetlands of Lafourche parish and the local cz:m
administration.

Goal 9. For the local CM-program manager anci the parish
CZM review board to use the power of review of all CZM
activities of "state concern" to insure that the goals and
objectives of the Lafourche plan are followed when coastal
zone activities not subject to local permitting are per-
formed in Lafourche Parish wetlands.

GENERAL COASTAL ZONE.POLICIES

Policy 1. New oil and gas access canals should have a dam
placed across the canal near to the point where the canal
intersects the water body from which the channel was begun.
This dam shouldbe of sufficient height level to prevent tidal
interchange up to +4 M.S. L. and s:ioixld be surrounded in -front
and back by 50 feet of backfill material deposited to the
former marsh level (100 feet total plus the plug itself).
This activity shoilldbe accomplished either after, a dry hole
has been completed or after the oil or gas well has finished
its usefulness and be en shut off and/or abandoned.
Irl Policy 2.. All new pipeline canals should.ust- thp push ditch
1 1-ackfill the pipeline
method of channel construction and sha2
channel. Plugs ahould be placed near the mouth or mouths of
the channel and backfilling to former marsb level fiftv feet
in front and to the rear of the channel should be xccompIished
(100 feet total plus plug) as per Policy 1.

Policy 3. Dams, plugs, and spoil banks constructed as a re-
sult o:Fthe CZM programshouldbe maintained by the individual,
or company responsible for dredging the area.

Policy 4. Pipelines should not be laid on the marsh. Subsi-
dence and marsh 'deterioration results in only a partial burial
of the pipecreating a hazard to navigation.-

Policy 5. Pipelines crossing existing channels should be buried
linder such channels to sufficient depth.as to avoid being-a
hazard to navigation. Burial should be-accomplished 100 feet
from the channel on each bank to compensate for channel erosion
LI which could cause an unburied pipe to be exposed.
Policy 6. Pipeline crossings should be. maintained by the indi-
vidual or company responsible for laying the pipe or the owner-
of the pipeline, whichever is applicable.

Policy 7.. The following policies shrould apply to a .11 E.M.U* 'S
where board road's are used to access oil and/or gas drilling
sites.

Board Road Conditions throughout the Unit:

a. Culverts shouldbe placed where streams and sloughs
are crossed by the roadway embankment and at other
-et flows . The
lo@ations to promote or maintain she
maximum spacing between culverts should be 500 feet.
The openings of the culverts must be maintained so
as to allow for free flow of water.

b. Contents of mud pits and other drilling residues
shouldbe removed from the site and disposed of
in a lawful manner when drilling operations have
been completed.
C. Ring levees sho'uld be degraded -by restoring the
material with which they were built into the
areas from which it was removed, and the area
leveled to as near preproject conditions as
practicable after mud pits have been cleaned.

d. Broken boards andother extraneous construction
materials shouldbe removed f-rom the site when
the road is abandonpd by the permittee. All
plastic sheeting 8@hnuld tP removed fror. n.-n^s of
the roadway from which the boards are removed.

e.. No hydrocarbons, substances containfne hydrocar-
bons, drilling mud, drilling cuttings, and toxic
substances should be allowed to enter adjacent
waterways and wetlands.

f. The road fill placed in wetlands should be dredged
when the lonation is abandoned. The materials
should be deposited-i-atr thom borrow areas Or
ditches, and the area restored to as near pre-
project conditions as practical using the material
available in the road fill.

g. Should changes in the location or the section of
the existing waterways, or in the generally pre-
vailing conditions in the vicinity be required in
the future, in the public interest, the applicant
shouldmake such changes in the project concerned
or in the arrangement thereof as may be necessary
to satisfactor'ily meet the situation ands)iall
bear the cost thereof.

These board road conditions ensure that sheet flow and
water circulation are maintained, and that toxic sub-
.stances or pollutants are not allowed to enter into
wetland habitats.

pnliny 8. When mitigation activities are required for a
permit of "local concern" the following priority shall be
used to define the area where such mitigation will take
place.

Priority 1: In'the immediate vicinity of the permitted
activity
Priority 2: Ih the same Environmental Management unit

Priority 3: In the Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone

It is further recommended that mitigation. for "uses of*sta-te
concern" follow the same-priority system for mitigation where-
ever feasible.
12nliny 9 Where gea'eral' mitigation, or the specific mitigation
activity required of a CMS permit recipient for uses of local
concern is not feasibleP the permit recipient may be required
to contribute a negotiated monetary sum into the Lafourche
Parish CZM trust fund. Monies from this fund are specifically
designated for-capit'al mitigation projects undertaken by
Lafourche Parish Vvith the Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone as
designated by the Lafourche Parish Council in consultation wjth
the CZM Permit Administrator*. Monetary sums will only be
collected by the Parish for uses of local concern.

-Policy 1-0- Existing pipeline corridors should be used where-
ever possible throughout the Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone to
minimize marshland destruction and-reduce saltwater intrusion.

Policy 11- All pipeline corridors should be kept to the mini-
mum width required to conduct any permitted activity.

Where general policies refer to a. "use of state concern",

the policies are int ended only as recommendations to the t3tate

program managers and are not legally binding on the permit

applicant or the state CZM Program.

The Permit System and Permit Monitoring

Permitting

A permitting system has been selected as the mechanisms

to review activities occurring itL the Parish. coastal zone. The

system tracks closely the requirements of the state program

yet is unique to Lafourche Parish in its.method of activity re-

view. The system is designed to review applications for all

uses within the coastal zone area as defined bv the Louisiana

Coastal Resources Program as outlined in the state program

synopsis in Chapter 1 of this report.

Permit Monitoring

Taking advantage of the State CZ11 permitting system, the

local CZM Advisory Committee, the data assembled in the p arish

CZM plan and existing technical resources, comments on proposed

coastal uses that fall-under the jurisdiction of the State of

Louisiana will be used to:

(1) insure that the integrity of the local CZM plan is
maintained

(2) assist the state in completing its permit review

The permit mechanism thus allows the parish and 8tate to

review most of the activities that could-potentially have im-

pact on our parish or state wetlands with the stated aim of

minimizing such impacts without prodibiting the activity in

the wetlands.

Environmental Management Units
Descriptions, Objectives, and Policies

Lafourche Parish has been divided into 16 Environmental

Management Units (E.M.U.'s) for the purpose of recognizing

environmental differences so as to target specific areas.

Environmental Management Units have been described'in detail

and have had objectives and policies written for them that

recognize the existing environment.

Permit requests will be evaluated against these policies

as well as the goals and objectives of the local program before

issuing, issuing with modifications, or denying any .request for

n C

activities in the coastal wetlands. These descriptions and

policies are also recommended for uses in the monitoring

process for state permits.

The C721 Ordinance

The ordinance developed for this program refers to this

document as its guidance. The ordinance spells. out the per-

mitting procedure in Lafourche Parish and legally establishes

the entire program. This is the essential legal element of

the Lafourche program.

CzM in Surrounding- Parishes

As part of the permit monitoring program, all permits in

surrounding parishes that may have an effect on Lafourche Parish

wetlands will be monitored and, if necessary, commented on.

Once local programs are established in the surrounding parishes,

more formal coordination mechanisms will be established to in-

sure similar program directions.

CONCLUSION

These are the main elements of the Lafourche CZM Program.

The following chapters will, in detail, describe the parameters

that constitute our parish,CZM strategy.

CHAPTER III*

PERMITTING AND PERMIT MONITORING:
THE CZM MANAGEMENT TOOL

Introduction

The administrative review system selected for the state

and local management of Louisiana's coastal zone is coastal

use perm.,;.tting. Like other permit programs before it., the

"Coastal Use Permit" (CUP) as it is referred to in the CZM

program requires that anyone wishing to undertake an

activity that falls within the jurisdiction of the State CZM

program (See Chapter 1, Page 17) must obtain a permit to

undertake that activity. The permit request contains enough

information for the reviewer (either state or local) to

determine what is being requested, where, how long it will

take, and how much it will affect the lands on which it will

be accomplished. Then it. is-up to the reviewer to ascertain

the effect of the proposed activity and under what conditions

it will be allowed based on the criteria established in the

state and/or local CZM program. This chapter will describe

-.n detail the permitting process envisioned for the Lafourche

Parish program and how it will work.

Area of Jurisdiction

Act 361 has defined the coastal zone boundarv for
Louisiana. Figure 3.1 illustrates the general CZM boundary
across the state. The following is a description of the CZM
boundary as it crosses Lafourche Parish:

Figure 3. 1

LOUISIANA
COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT BOUNDARY

now

00106

0 m .50

CZM Bounday

This map is accurate for pionriing
purposee ONLY.

"Thence proceeding easterly to Highway 55, then proceeding
northerly along Highway 55 to its intersection.with Highway
665, thence easterly along Highway 665 to Bayou Pointe au Chien,
thence northerly along Bayou Pointe au Chien to Highway 55,
thence northerly along Highway 55 to Highway 24, thence east-
erly along Highway 24 to Highway 308, thence northerly along
Highway 308 to a-point of intersection with the northern bank
of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, thence northeasterly along
the northern bank of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway to a point
of intersection with Canal 7isamond Foret, thence proceeding
northeasterly along-the northern bank of the Canal Tisamond
Foret to a point of intersection with a line one hundred yards
inland from the mean high tide line of Lake Salvador, thence
proceeding northerly along the line one hundred yards inland
from the mean high tide of Lake Salvador to a point of inter-
section with a line one hundred yards from the mean high water-
line of 13ayou Des Allemands, thence proceeding northwesterly
along the line one hundred yards inland from the western mean
high water line of Bayou Des Allemands; and the petit Lac Des
Allemands to a point of intersection with the boundary sepa-
rating Wards 7 and 8 of Lafourche Parish, thence proceeding
southwesterly along said boundary to a point of intersection
with the Midway Canal, thence proceeding northwesterly along
the Midway Canal, and in a northwesterly straight line pro-
longation of said canal, to a point of intersection with U.S.
Highway 90, thence proceeding northeasterly along U.S. Highway
90 to a point of intersection with.the line one hundred yards
from.the western mean high water line of Baie Des Deux Chenes,
thence proceeding northwesterly along said line one hundred
yards from the western mean high water line of Baie Des Deux
Chenes to a point of intersection with the line one h-andred
yards from the mean high water line of Lac Des Allemands,
thence proceeding westerly along said line to a point of inter-
section with a line one hundred yards from--the mean high water
line of Bayou Boeuf, thence proceeding southerly along the line
one hundred yards from the mean high water line of Bayou Bouef
to a point of intersection with Highway 307, thence proceeding
westerly along Highway 307 to a point of intersection.with High-
way 20, thence proceeding northerly along Highway 20 to a point
of intersection with the boundary separating St. James Parish
and Lafourche Parish, thence proceeding westerly along said
boundary to a'p*oint of intersection 'with the boundary separating
St. James Parish and Assumption." (Act 361 as amended)

Figure 3.2 illustrates the CZM boundary on a map of
Lafourche Parish.

It must be noted that only the lower third of Lafourche
Parish falls underthe jurisdiction of the CZM program. Wet-
lands outside this legislative boundary are not subSect to the
permitting program unless the effect of activities performed
there have a "direct and significant impact" on coastal waters
as def ined in Act 361.

Figure 3.2

LAFOURCHE PARSH COASTAL ZQbL

- ------- ---

Ur"
7 UW

4 8
V7

10
I CNMIENTAL MANAGEM . !!@
9 E4T UNn z5
1. Delta Forms
?-North Uttle Lake
3 Ba
Buyou Porte Au Chien
4. Ily camp
5. South Lafouncte .,C
6 South Laburche A
7 Clovelly Forms
a C.1ovelly
9. South Lafourche
IQ Raccourd
11. Golden Meadow
12- South Barataria r-
la Leeville LW RX=t=
14 Timbalier LAW
15 Fourchon
Ir. Camincida
to

vk6ft Map my

14
i 3

THE LAFOURCHE PERMIT PROGRAM

Introduction

In Chapter 1 of.this report uses of local and state con-

cern were defined. (See Page 20). The following describes

the portion of the Lafourche program that involves direct per-

mitting based on the criteria of the-Lafourche program as

described in this report.

1. Permit applicant applies for a Coastal Use Permit
(CUP) to either the Coastal Management Section (CMS)
of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources'
(LaDNR), or the Lafourche Parish Local Coastal Zone
Management (CZM) Administrator. In order to speed
processing, however, permit applicants are encouraged
to file*state permits with the Coastal Management
Section and local permits with Lafourche Parish.

2. Louisiana. Department of Natural Resources or the
Lafourche Parish Local Administrator decide whether
the permit is of local or state concern within two
(2) days of receipt of the permit.

3. If the permit is of "local concern" it is processed
through the Lafourche Paxish Local Administrator's
Office in the following manner:

A. Within ten (10) days after receipt of CUP of
"local concern", notice will be published in
official journal of the parish.

B. Notice will contain the nature of the proposed
coastal use, the location, and estimated costs.

C. Notice will indicate that all interested persons
may make comments or suggestions to the local ad-
ministrator within the twenty-five (25) day time
limit after publication of notice.
D. Within the period of comment, the'local adminis-
trator will endeavor to seek the comments of the
CZM Review Board and/or Parish Council on the
proposed CUP.

E. After all the comments are received and after the
twenty-five (25) day period has elapsed, the ad-
ministrator may issue, deny, or issue the permit
with nnnHitinn=

F. The Council may override the'local permit decision
if done so in writingstating the reason why the
administrative decision did not follow the rules
and regulations set forth in the local CZM pro-
gram. Such overrides will be reviewed by the
CZII of LaDNR..

4.- During the comment period, itmay be determined that
a public hearing is warranted on the CUP by the
Administrator, Parish Council, or any interested
person.(in writing) for the reasons enumerated in
the Lafourche Parish CZM Ordinance..

The following procedures shall be followed for public
hearings:

A. Public notice shall be given at least thirty (30)
days in advance of the public hearing.

B. Notice of the hearing shall be sent to allper-
sons requesting notices of such hearings and
posted at all governmental bodies having an
interest.in the subject matters of such hearing
(notice may be limited in area consistent with
the nature oIr the hearing)..

C. Notice shall contain the time, place, nature of
the hea=ing, and the location of materials avail-
able-for public inspection.

D. Hearing file shall remain open ten (10) days after-
the close of the public hearing for submittal of
written comments or other material.

E. Decisions shall be made by-the Local Administrator
in writing-in the appropriate time period after
the close of the hearing file.

5. All permit decisions shall be published in the official
Journal of the parish within ten.ClO) days after the
decision has been rendered. All decisions will be made
part of the official record b7. the Parish Council.

6. All permit decisions may be appealed directly to the
jiidicial system after the permit.d#.cision has bee-a made.
Appeals as to whether &.permit should be "local" or
"state" concern!@shall be filed-within ten (10) days
of the giving notice to the.Parish Council.

The permit program described in this report tracks the
ritime frame" requirements set up under the State CZM pro-
gram. (For a complete description, See Chapter V).

Figure 3.3 provides a graphic illustration of the re-

view elements that axe required of a "use of local concern"

under the Lafourche CZM program. The program complies with

state law, allows for adequate review, andh as a well thought

out program to back it up. This portion of the program will

self generate funds which can be used to at least partially

defray the cost of operation. (The CZ-11 Ordinance sets a per-

mit review fee of $50.00 for review per application). Figure

3.4 outlines the entire permit process.

Monitoring Uses of Greater than
Local Concern in Lafourche Parish

As mentioned Dreviously, Act-361 delegates permit authority

to the state as well-as parish. (See Page 20). The.parish still

plays an important role in that it may review activities re-

quiring a. state permit. If the parish has a CZM plan that tracks

the state program, and if an activity requiring a state Dermit

violates our local plan (which must be consistent with the state

program) then this allows the parish a strong argument in the

event it wishes,to contest a state permit, an argument the parish

cannot now make under the current exclusive federal management

system of our. wetlands. Figure 3.5 illustrates the review

process for state permits that the Lafourche CZM program allows.

It is apparent that the same level of review-may be made for

local or state concern permits even though the parish directly

issues only a portion of the total permit requests.

Figure

PERMIT EVAWATION
.USES 'OF LOCAL
CONCtRN

LOCAL PROGRAM
GOALS and OBJECTIVES

ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
UNITS
GOALS and OBJECTIVES PERMIT
I ISSUED
LOCAL r-WIRONMtNTAL
PERMIT AvIng CONDITIONS in
REQUEST IN E. M.U.'� PERMIT
DENIED
OTHER
TECHNICAL INMRMATION

CUMULATIVE

IMPACT
PL OR M I LT
R
QUEST
EID

3.4

permit Issued.
Public "OWN -Denled or Issued
Itions
----------- C.14M Permll
Coostof Mx""
Section W& an Coastal Evaluation for
Louisiana DeWmat Use P#rmlft (CU.P) Co"Id! 1.1" pkmh
of Natural. Resources OLOOO!"Or '9010 of ostale Can;wn"

Pa"111 ISOU04
-J
Denied or l1eitoW
With CorAIGIO

AMW to Find
Permll
system
C*dsfd Use Permit Decision
H
Applicant
UP. of Corr"Mot
SION C , , A
rovordid % C.M.S. of C.up pover" 16 C.M.1 Ch
Deps !.,w A fd Par" Concow

Lftd A"
%vim

C.Z.K
Review Boord
Review
Public thorInq on Permit Decision
La%sch6 Porigh Lalourche Parish Pfopoidd C.U.p by
Q7-K Lad MrAnWift afourche Ptrish f Local Administrator
C.U. Counvel I%VWw Lood C
Local Administrator to Oros ROVION at "Locaf
am ost

fLafourcho Parish
L-JAdR",,* k, I-,,
CUo
p
P.0
of
flood Concern

C.Z.M. Review Board
T Cann n% and pt
"4' "
De@d or I

p @O McM

Id
'a
Recommendations
It - Permit D'ecision
Parish =no,,
I by
Corn LOCGI Adminwrafor

Figure 3.5

PERMIT EVALUATION
USES OF STATE
CONCERN

LOCAL PROGRAM
GOALS and o6&clivF-s

ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT
UNITS
GOALS dnd OBJECTIVES

INFORMED
STATE IENVIRONMENtAL
.PERMIT ohmfod @ I RECOMMENDATION
AVdnd CONDITIONS In- TO STATE ON
REQUEST IN E. M. U. 't PERMIT

.OTHF-R

TECHNICAL INFORMATION
FRECO

CUMULATNt
IMPACT

'Permit Monitoring Outside Parish Boundaries

The review system, information base, and CZIA policies

have-beea designed to facilitate review o-f local or state

permit jurisdiction requirements. These features make it

possible to review permit requests in surrounding parishes,

or the region as they affect Lafourche Parish. Besides this,

however, there is a need for a coordinating mechanism to

insure a consistent direction for all local programs.

Lafourche Parish needs to know, for example, that policy re-

view of permits on the Terrebonne side of our parish border

will not adversely affect the Lafourche progr am. The very

fact that all local programs must be consistent with the

state program provides a unifying factor. However, it re-

mains for parishes themselves to get together to insure a

greater consistency of review.

At the writing of this report, there are not any func-

tioning local programs. Shortly, however, the parishes of

Terrebonne, Jefferson, and St. Charles will, like Lafourche,

will have functional local CZM programs. To this point there

have been informal contacts between Lafourche, Terrebonne,

and St. Charles regarding local program development. Rather

than rely on an individual approach with each parish, it is

proposed that monthly meetings be held, at leas t in the initial

stages of local CZM management under auspices of the particular

Planning commission with jurisdiction over parishes in that

area. In our area this means South Central Planning and

Development Commission. At these forums, parishes could

48*

compare programs and policies and work out any rough edges

by negotiating with each other. This should insure maximum

cooperation in the quickest possible time frame after state

approval of all local programs.

Among the items that could be negotiated are:

1. Alteration of E.M.U. boundaries along parish
lines (providing such changes are approved by
the CMS Section of the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources)

2. Modification of E.M.U. boundary policies at
parish lines

3. Notification of permit requests in one parish
which could affect another

4. Consis-tency in permit review

Wetlands know no artificial boundaries. It behooves

Lafourche and surrounding parishes to begin a process of

coordination as soon as it is feasible to do so after local

program approval.

CZM Coordination A'ith L.O.O.P.

There exists in Lafourche Parish a "Special Area" not

subject to the local or state CZM Program. ThAs area con-

sists of the pipeline corridor and storage facility

associated with the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port, the nation's

only offshore loading and storage facility for oil delivered

by the giant supertankers to the United States.

L.O.O.P. has developed and implemented its own environ-

mental management plan which has been approved by the State

of Louisiana. Even though this special area is outside of the

CZM permit jurisdiction, consistency requires that a coordi-

nation mechanism be established t-o insure a consistent

direction of wetlands management. To that en d, the following

coordination procedure has been established between L.O.O.P.

and the Lafourche Parish CZM Program.

1. Contact has been made with Mr. A. J. Highcamp, Super-
intendeni of Environmental Affairs for L.O.O.P.

2. We have.requested copies of:

a; The Environmental Monitoring Plan

b. Oil Spill Contingency Plan

c. L.O.O.P. Emergency Manual

3. We have forwarded a copy of our draft plan to Mr.
A. J. Highcamp

4.- We have proposed an information 'exchange whereby
he notified Lafourche Parish of any proposed or
existing activities that involve modification of
wetlands in the L.O.O.P. Special*Area. In turn
we notify him of any permit-requests nearby to
the special area that may affect the wetlands
under the L.O.O.P. management plan

5. After both parties have received the respective
exchanged plans, a meeting will be set up to "iron
out" ambiguities and attempt a coordinated effort-
at wetlands management involvina regular meetings,
if possible, between L.O.O.P. and the Lafourche CZY
Administrator

Welfeel that a dire.ct liason between L.O.O.P. and the

Lafourche Parish CZM Program is the best method of eliciting

voluntary cooperation and coordination of the two management

efforts. Negotiations for all of the above items are in

progress at the writing of this report.

CONCLUs,ION

Permitting will be the mechanism for reviewing what

happens in our parish wetlands. The following chapter will

describe the heart of the CZM program - the delineation,

description and polici6s of environmental management units,

the elements that will guide the permit decisions i:d the

Lafourche program.

CHAPTER IV
ENVIRONMENTAL*M'ANAGEMENT UNI TS-

INTRODUCTION

The concept of Environmental Management Units (E.M.U.'s),

developed as part of the local.and State CZM Programs, plays

an important role in the management system envisioned for

Laf.ourche Parish.

Basically an E.A.U. is a geographic area that is "different"

from the surrounding coastal lands. It is separate for reasons

of hydrology, vegetation, geomorDhology, man-made features (such

as levees) or other criteria. These differences imply that the

consequences of permitted coastal:.activities will have different

effects in different E.M.U.'s because-the environments (espe-

cially the ability to withstand stresses), are different. What

is perfectly acceptable and harmless in one area mav be devas-

tating if attempted elsewhere. Therefore, we must recognize

that there are real areal differences when evaluating or pro-

posing activities for the.coastal areas of our parish to

minimize any problems that have or will occurin our coastal

zone.

Functions

E.M.U.'s can serve the following functions in the Lafourche

Parish C721 Program:

(1) They describe and delineate the coastal zone into the

component environments that make it up, thus recog-
nizing differences that exist in the landscape.-

(2) Descriptions of these smaller'environments serve as
a source of environmental information that can be
used by both CZM program manager and permit appli-
cant in judging the advisability of activities in
different areas due to the differences in stress
tolerance of various environments across the coastal
zone. Thus the CMI pro-ram manager is capable of
making informed decisions.

(3) By monitoring the environments in each E.M.U., the
CZM program manager can become aware of problems
caused by one or more activities in one area, but not
others-. Thus regulations and/or restrictions and/or
projects can be targeted, rather than applied to the
entire coastal zone (for which they'may have little
relevance).

(4) Knowing the environments together with a record of
permit activity, can aid in forecasting and/or ame-
liorating the effects of cumulative impact of numerous
small activities in a given E.M.U.

(5) Knowing where the worst effects of a particular problem
are located can help.the state and the local program
managers channel resources to the right location to
solve the right.problems at the right time.

(6) Certain environments are unique or fragile. Deline-
ating and describing these areas cab aid the program
manager in preventing degradation or destruction of
them by developing special management tools and/or
Drogrgm to deal with these special areas.

Flexibility

The concept of E.H.U.'s is intended to be open-ended. The

boundaries and/or management concepts applied to the units are

not immutable. As information is gained or conditions change,

the boundaries and /or management strategies can be changed to

meet new requirements. Thus, E.M.U.'s are a flexible tool

capable of meeting current as well as future program needs.

Applicability

E.M.U. policies are recognized as guides, not as hard

and fast rules of procedure. Local policy statements have

been conceived as being opea?--ended, flexible, to be used as

a guide to both the permit applicant and the parish.

Many parish guidelines reflect policies that involve

?areas of state concern". Over 80% of the CZM permits

issued in Lafourche Parish to date have been of state juris-

diction, mainly energy related activities. The CZM program

recognizes that any'guidelines proposed to regulate energy
activities or any other use of state concern are'recommenda-

tions only and are not binding on the state program or permit

applicant. However, since many of the'deleterious effects in

the Lafourche coastal zone have come about directly or in-

directly from these types of activities, there was a need to

provide the state CZU program with local site-specific best

judgment on policies which could be used to ameliorate the

problems caused in large part by these activities. In effect,

when local CZM policies refer to uses of state-concern, the

parish is using a. highly enhanced form of comment that Lafourche,

like anyone-else, is allowed.to make on any CZM permit request

applied for under this program.

Local policies covering uses of local concern, because of

parish permitting authority, have de facto more weight, since

the power to permit resides with the same public body as the
policies. However, the parish recognizes polici .es covering

"local concern" as flexible and changeable, should new infor-

mation or conditions warrant. It is in this light that the

E.M.U. policy statements and descriptions are offered.

Table 4.1 lists the environmental management units for

Lafourche Parish. The number of units and some boundaries

have been altered from the initial breakdown provided by

the State of Louisiana in the interest of efficiency and,

based on greater information about the coastal areas covered

by these units.

Table 4.2 lists the environmental management units

classified under the three broad headings of recommended

uses.

TABLE 4.1-.

ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNITS
LAFOURCHE PARISH

Bayou.Pointe-Au-Chien

Bully Camp'

Caminada

Clovelly

Clove.lly Farms

Delta Farms

Fourchon

Golden Meadow

Leeville

North Little Lake

Raccourci

South Barataria

South Lafourche A

South Laffourche B

South Lafourche C

Timbalier

TABLE 4.2

CLASSIFICATION OF LAFOURCHE PARISH
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNITS

Intensive Development

South Lafourche A

Limited Development

South Lafourche B
South Laf ourche C
Clovelly Farms
Delta Farms

Conservation

Bayou Pointe-Au-Chien
Bully Camp
Raccourci
North Little Lake
ClovellY
South Barataria
Leeville
Fourchon
Timbalier
Caminada
'Golden Meadow

LAND USE CLASSIFICATION FOR LAFOURCHE
PARISH ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT UNITS

The Environmental Management Units (F.M.U.'s) of

Lafourche Parish are divided into six general categories

of use. They are:

(1) Intensive Development
(2) Limited Development
(3) Conservation
(4) Particular Areas
(5) Development Corridors
(6) Special Areas

Each E.M.U'. has been placed under one of the above classi-

fications. The definitions of the six classifications retlect

to a great extent the carrying capacity or use capability of

the land area within. each unit. The definitions serve as a

general framework from which goals, objectives, and specific

policies are developed for each E.M.U. that recognize the

development capability of the land area within the unit, as

well as the future of that land area as envisioned under this

coastal management program. The Louisiana Coastal Zone Manage-

ment Program DCES NOT categorically brohibit ANT USE in any

area of the Coastal Zone. However, based on the goals, objec-

tives, and policies developed for each unit, and based on

environmental information about the unit, prohibitions,

restrictions, and/or mitigation of activities may' be required

on a case by case basis in order to meet the requirements of

the State and Local CZM Program-. It-is in this framework that
the following definitions are o.ffered:.-

Intensive Development

Generally includes all types of normal industrial,

commercial, residential activit7 that would normally be

associated with intensive human habitation of an area.

In the coastal zone of Lafourche Parish, management units

classified as "Intensive Development" coincide with those

areas not normally subject to permitting under the CZM Pro-

gram. These areas are well developed, reclaimed, and

protected by levees, and as such, can support all uses

normally associated with human habitation subject only to

the indirect imDact restrictions (such as water pollution)

specified in the State CZM Plan.

Limited Development

This classification is generally associated with areas@

'which have been or are modified from their natural wetland

state for some human use. This classification recognizes

that limited uses are being made of all or portions of the

management units listed under the classification system.

-Mese uses will continue. However, other more intensive uses

other than the current usage of land will be discouraged for

reasons listed with'each E.M.U. that receives this classifi-

cation. The goals and objectives of that unit-will reflect

the limitations of these E.M.U.'s. Intensive development

uses allowed and/or enc ouraged in these areas will be spe-.

cifically listed for each unit with this classification.

Conservation

These areas include large acreages of marshes, cheniers,

and some swamp forest. This classification discourages human

habitation or other extensive land uses that would neg'ate or

impede the function of the ecosystem and exacerbate land loss

and/or saltwater intrusion. All uses that alter, in any way,

the.land cover of the area and/or produce pollutants will be

subject to vigorous examination using the vehicle of the CZM

permitting system to which this area is subject. The objec-

tive of managing land uses in this classification is to avoid

any permanent alteration of or negative impact on the wetlands
included in these management units to the max'imum extent prac-

ticable and in keeping with the goals aad objectives of this

program. It is recognized that,certain narrow corridors of

land that have been or are used for more intensive develop-

ment are included in these units. Th eseareas will be @eviewed

as to the capacity for certain types of development, historical

uses to which these areas have been subject, and the ecodomic

necessity of those uses along those corridors.

Additional use restrictions that may have developed are.as

follows:

(1) Restrictions based on the exist -ence of a unique or
fragile or valuable habitat

(2) Restrictions based on the severity of land loss in a
given area

(3) Restrictions due to a particularly acute saltwater
intrusion problem in a given area

Development Corridors

It is recognized that, even though, the majority of the

Environmental,Managerient Units within the coastal zone.of

Lafourche Parish have been designated "Conservation" that

important corridors of transportation and nodes of develop-

ment have existed in the past and still are being used to

facilitate commerce and access to the coast. These narrow

corridors can and do support more intensive development than

the surrounding wetlands. Therefore, these corridors should

be identified and treated differently regarding the issuing

of Dermits f"or activities on these lands.

Figure 4.1 is a listing of these corridors along with what

development uses are extant or proposed in these areas. In

individual E.M.U. description and policy statements, these

areas are further described an:d considered by E.M.U. policy

statements.

Particular Areas

Partin.ular areas are areas of land or water within the

coastal zone of Lafourche Parish that have some unique property

that sets them apart and require special management procedures.

These 'spedi,,.l areas may include all or portions of certain
E.M.U7' Is and will have their own set of special guidelines

that may differ from those within the E.M.U. in which they

are located. The particular areas may-be associated with

FIGURE 4.1

DEVELOPMENT CORRIDORS

Corridor

Highway 1 South From new South Lafourche levee south industrial oil and gas support
boundary to Highway 3090 facilities and light commercial
provided there are adequate pro-
E.M.U.'s affected: visions for waste disposal and
sewerage and no new wetlands are
South Barnlarla reclaimed for any development,
Leeville Fourchen recreational camp development is
also concerned with similar
restrictions.

Leeville Areas Contiguous with current area developed Industrial oil and support
facilities and light commercial
E.M.U.'s Affected: provided there are adequate pro-
visions for waste disposal and
Leeville sewerage and no new wetlands are
reclaimed for any development,
recreational camp development is
also concerned with similar
restrictions.

Highway 1 East Section From Highway 3090 to Jefferson Parish Recreational camp development and
Border some light commercial and support
facilities associated with recre-
E.M.U.'s Affected: ation.

Caminada
South Unratarin

Port Fourchon Area Contigious with Port Fourchon facility The completion of Port Fourchon
and Fourchon Island oil and gas develop- facility as well as maintenance of
ment. existing facilities on Fourchon
Island.
E.M.U.'s Affected:

Fourchon

intensive development, limited development,.or conservation

activitie8 which will be specified in the Particular Areas

description.

Some Possible particular Areas in Lafourche Pa*rish

(1) Port Fourchon - In Fourchon Management Unit -
proposed foF-limited development use. Indu8trial
port facility

(21 Caminada Beach Ridge Complex - In Caminada Manage-
ment Unit - proposed to protect and preserve unique
beach ridge, swale area from mining or destruction.
The area is a unique habitat for wildlife and serves
as a sburce of land for the coastal be'ach as well as
barrier islands. This area is the first and only
bulwark aga@nst rapid land loss as the higher ridges
serve to retard the erosion of marsh by the Gulf of
Mexico.

(3) Delta. Farms E.M.U. - (Flooded section) - proposed for
a recreational area..; Limited develooment would in-
clude levee repairs and the construction of some
marina facilities, roadways, and probably recreational
camp structures.,

(4) East Timbalier Island - In the Timbalier E.M.U., this
barrierisland is a unique habitat and helns protect
the coastline from erosion. The island is currently
undergoing severe erosion pressures. It is nroposed
that physical restoration projects be underti.ken to
stabilize or at least retard erosion as "7ell. as intro-
duce new sand to help maintain the islanA.

F. M. rT,
(5) Fourchon. Beach - In the Fourchon i - nroposed
that li-m'17-eT-reareational use be made of this beach.
This would include trash pick-up, some shelters, some
roadway improvements, and policing of what could be
a useable recreational beach area.

Particular Area Selection

No particular areas have been selected at this time by

the Lafourche CZM program. It was felt that the establishment

of the basic program-should take precedence over the selection

of Particular Areas. After the program is established, and

subsequent to further study by the CZM program manager and

Parish Council of the-feasibility of establishing particular

areas, one or more of the above areas may be chosen for this

special status.

Special Areas in Lafourche Parish

There is only one special area in Lafourche Parish, the

Louisiana Offshore Oil Port Storage Facilities and pipeline

corridor. This is a State Speclal Area with its own environ-

mental protection plan under the direct jurisdiction of the

Coastal Manag6ment Section of tiae Louisiana Department of

Natural Resources.

-DESCRIPTIONS AND POLICIES

The following pages contain descriptions and manage-

ment information for each environmental management unit in

the Lafourche Coastal Zone. The information is arranged in

the following format:

I. EA.U. Environmental Description

A. Boundary

B. Soils

C. Vegetation

D. Subsidence Potential if drained

E. Land Loss.Potential

1. Due to Shoreline Retreat

2. Due to Channel Construction

F. Topographic Features

G. Flooding Potential

H. Important Farmlands

I. Use of Land

J. Unique Ecological Features

1. Geological Features

2.. Botanical Features

3. Zoological Features

K. Recreational Potential

L. Hydrologic Resources

M. Historic/Cultural/Arch.eologicaI

1. Historic Sites

2. Cultural Sites

3. Archeological Sites

II. Goals for E.M.U.

III. E.M.U. Policies

A. E.M.U. Capsule Description

B. General E.M.U. Policies

C. Sub-E.M.U. Policies (if any)

IV. Land Cover Statistics (Based on Land Cover Analysis
using Landsat Satellite data April, 1976,
September, 1980)

V. Land Cover Change Statistics (Based on Landsat frames
April, 1976, September, 1980';'

In addition to this information, the following graphic

E.M.U. data is available at the Lafourche Parish Planning De

partment Offices.

.1. E.M.U. tracing overlays of basic land cover cate 'gories
extracted from U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Habitat
Maps

2. High altitude infra-red aerial photo mosaic 1:20,000
of the Laf6urche Coastal Zone with E.M.U. boundaries

3. Color reproduction of Landsat Land Cover Maps - 1976Y
1980 of the Lafourche Coastal Zone with E.M.U. bound-
aries

The E.M.U. information that follows has been derived from

previous coastal management re.norts, a variety of research

publications, aerial surveys oi' the coastal area and the above

three map sources as well as extensive research conducted by

the Planning Department and the Lafourch-e CZM Advisory Committee.

The E.M.U. policy recommendations are bas6d'on' these information

sources.as well as the 'oersonal knowledge of the Planning Depart-

ment and the Lafourche CZM Advisorv Committee. The policies

represent our best judgment on how to best manage the coastal

wetlands to fulfill the goals of this parish program and the

goals and objectives of the State of Louisiana. (See Figure

4.2 for location of Environmental Management Units in the

Lafourche Coastal Zone). In all cases@ the goals, objectives,

and policies of the Lafourche Coastal Zone Ma@agement Program

are consistent with Act 361 and the guidelines promulgated

under that act as contained in the Final Environmental Impact

Statement for the Louisiana Program.

Table 4.1 lists the environmental management units for
Lafou'rche Parish. The number of units and some boundaries

have been altered from the initial breakdown provided by the

State of Louisiana in the interest of efficiency and, based

on greater information about the coastal areas covered by

these units.

Table 4.2 lists the environmental management units

classified under the three broad headings of recommended uses.

Figure 4.2

LAR)URCHE PARSH. COASrAL ZONE

%me*

Ur"
7 LQM

4 8
X

'\-,IRCNVIENTA 10.
L MANAGEM A,
1. Ceita Fbrms pli
Z North Uftle Lake
3 Bayou Pointe Au Chien
4. Bully Camp
II II
5. South Lcifourche ,CIO
13* South U3fOUrche A
7 C!avelly Forms
a C:ovelly
9. South Lafourche "B"
!Q Raccourd
i 1. Golden Meadow
12- South Barataria
la L-eville
!@ Fourchon LAW ROCCOUM
14 Tmbalier
ia Caminada
10

Vida* MW Tags"" a"

LAFOURCHE ENVIROM4ENTAL-

MANAGEMENT UNITS

Figure 4.3
NORTH LITTLE LAKrc_

LAa SALVA"

DELTA FAR

Loo

00" 00
0
SCULLY CANAL

aavsa EMAL
CLMLLY

FARMS

1 0 3 4MILES.
SCALE

DELTA FAF11S

LOCATION: The Delta Farms E.M.U. is bordered by the west, south,
and east by its own levee system. On the north, the boundary is
the Intracoastal Waterway.

soirs: Fresh - intermediate marshes and shallow water bodies pre-
dominate. A unique fresh - intermediate water laJ-e created by@
recent flooding of a previously drained and leveed farmland exists
in the southern part of the unit.

VEGETATION: Modified wetland vegetation dominates the area.
Vegetation ranges from fresh marsh in the western portion of the
unit-to the dominant intermediate marshes"and'to brackish marshes
fringing Bayou Perot, Little Lake, and Clovelly Canal. Along the
canals dug for reclamation and mineral extraction in the northern
portion of the unit, spoil bank brushy'Vegetation can.be found on
the higher banks.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL IF DRAINED: The study unit has.a Very I.Tigh
n-
subsidence potential, over 72 inches in 60 years has been recorded
in the southern sectic.n.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL:

A. Land Loss Due-to Channelization: Land loss potential due
to saltwater intrusion,. channellization, and wave action.

B. Land Loss Due to Reclamation: This area was originally
marshland Fe-claimed for agricultural purposes. Loss of
Protective levees along the Intracoastal waterway has
created a new ecological feature; a new fresh - inter-
mediate lake.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: The Study Unit is bounded on the west and
aorta by the IntF-a-coastal Canal, Bayou Perot on the east, and Little
Lake., Clovelly Canal, and Bayou Lafourche ridge on the south.
Location canals and other drainage canals are found throughout the
unit. Dixie Delta Canals runs east - west, cutting-the unit -
approximately ia half. The Delta-Farms area was drained and leveed
(land was protected by a 4 toot levee) for agricultural purposes
in 1910. Elevations in the unit are now minus five (-5), feet MSL.
The loss in elevation is due to subsidence from draining marshland,
saltwater intrusion, channelization, and wave action. A new lake
created bv flooding of the unit in 1971, now has an average depth
of 6 feet-. (Falgout, 1978).

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire unit is flood prone.

I_M@PORTANT FARMLANDS: None.

USE OF LAND: ThE unit is an excellent area for fishing, hunting
and trapping. TY area contributes directly to the Barataria BaLin
estuary system ar is a nursery ground for many commercial and
recreationally in ortant fisheries species.

The unit has been heavily used by the oil and gas industries.
Several major pir lines cross the unit and oil and gas fields in
the unit include 'est Delta Farms Oil Field, Little Temple Oil and
Gas Field, and-BE ou Poignard Gas Field. The IntrRcoastal Water-
way bordering thE unit is a major transportation route.

Camps are thE only dwellings found on Delta Farms.

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAI FEATURES:

A. Geologicc, Features: Delta varms is open to the Intra-
coastal 11 terway on the west and, through several canals,
connects o Little Lake on the east. The breach in the
Intracoak al Waterway levee has resulted in flooding of
Delta Fai is, creating a new brackish lake. Turbid and
poor qual ty waters entering this lake,via the Intra-
coastal 11 terway flow into Little Lake. No research
has been -one to assess the effects of the new water flow
on the *C- er quality of Little Lake, but both commercial
and sport fishermen report a change in Little Lake waters.
High turt dity of the Intracoastal Waterway water prevents
aquatic v getation from being established and wave wash from
the c=al has led to land loss. The'breach in the canal
levee has also created *a new path for saltwater intrusion into
previousl fresh marshes (Falgout, 1978).

B. Botanica2 Features: None.

C. BiologicE. Features: Part of the Barataria Basin

RECREATIONAL POTI 'TIAL: Fishing, hunting, and trapping are excellent
in the-Delta FaFff - 0 MIT . I
HYDROLOGIC RESOU1 'ES: The hydrology of the Delta Farms Unit has
undergone drastic changes with the introduction of water from the
Intracoastal WatE -way. Once an area of fresh marsh, reclamation
and resultant flc 4ing have changed both the salinity and quality
of water in this rea.

HISTORIC/CULTURAI ARCHEOLOGICAL:

A. Historic ites: Delta Farms was an agricultural reclamation
project I 7ffe-r-T-aken in 1910. Flooding of the area occurred
in 1971 x @sulting in a new lake.

B. -Cultural: None.

C. Archeolog-_' al Sites:

LF 77 -nown Shell Midden on Intracoastal Taterway
LF 78 -.nown Shell Midden on Intracoastal Waterway

GOALS

1. Halt saltwater intrusion into Delta Farms Lake

2. Improve recreational facilities to provide greater access
to Delta Farms Lake

3. Maintain the integrity of the existing levee system'
surrounding the flooded portion of the E.M.U.

4. Maintain the integrity of the relatively undisturbed fresh
marsh area north of Delta Farms Lake by imposing mitigation
conditions on any dredge and fill permits issued in this
area that retard marsh erosion

5. Halt the spread of Lake Salvador into the Delta Parms fresh
marsh area

POLICIES

Delta Farm E.M.U. is a unique area within the Lafourche coastal zone.
Once a wetland area drained and farmed for sugar cane, a levee break
in 1971 resulted in the flooding of the southern part of the E.M.U.
This lake is almost fresh and processes very good fishing.

POLICY 1. All General Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone shall
apply in this E.M.U. unless modified by specific E.M.U. or sub-E.M.U.
policies stated in this E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. Existing canals should be used whenever feasible to access
new drilling sites in the Larose Oil Field area within the R.M.U., as
indicated on the land cover map. New dredging should be kelot'to an
absolute minimum. here and subject to conditions stated elsewhere in
the policies.

POLICY 3. All canals dredged for any purpose throughout the E.M.U.
should be plugged with earth or rip rap after abandonment to reduce
the effects of saltwater intrusion as per Lafourche Coastal Zone
General Policies 2 and 3. This especially applies to canals emanating
from the Intracoastal Waterway into the Larose Oil Field Area.

POLICY 4. No attempt should be made to redrain the flooded portion of
Delta Farms E.M.U. until recreational potential of Delta Farms Lake
can be assessed and a plan developed to utilize the area.

POLICY 5. The existing boat launch into Delta Farms shall be cleared
of trasF-and improved so as to provide greater access to Delta Farms.
Lake. This may be accomplished by applying conditions of mitigation
on permitted activities that would include undertaking all or portion
of these activities.

POLICY 6. If a successful arrangement can be negotiated with the owners
of De ta Farms, an attempt will be made to repair the levee that washed
out along the Intracoastal Waterway, flooding Delta Farms. The aim
of the rebuilding will be to preserve Delta Farms as a recreational
freshwater lake. This work will not be undertaken until a comprehensive!
plan can be developed for the area.

POLICY 7. North of Delta Farms Lake, the fresh marsh is in relatively
undisturbed condition. It is E.M.U. policy to keep dredge and fill
activities here to an absolute minimum by means of policies stated
elsewhere in this section and by requiring that:

(1) Dredged materials in any excavation be spread out in
priority areas of mars 'h deterioration so'as to create
new marsh sites as close as possible to the area (to
be determined by local administrator) disturbed.

(2) Canals connected-to the Intracoastal Waterway shall have
spoil placed continuously along their outside banhs to
retard the spread of saltwater into the freshmarsh area.

POLICY 8. Any dredging a-long the Intracoastal Waterway should require
that spoil be placed on the northern and southern bank along the north
and northwest perimeter of this E.M.U., to reduce erosion and saltwater
intrusion.

POLICY 9. 'The existing levees surrounding the flooded portion of
Delta Firms shall not be degraded in any way. If it is necessary to
traverse the levees with pipelines, canals, etc., the levee will be
rebuilt and revegetated after the activity is completed.

-POLICY 10. The major oil and gas access canal indicated on the Delta
Farms E.M.U. Land Cover Map should be p@ugged to retard saltwater
intrusion as per Lafourche Coastal Z@ne General Policies 2 and 3.
Any permits issued for dredge and fill activities in the vicinity of
this canal may require participation in this construction as a
mitigation measure pending approval from the landowner.

POLICY 11. Expansion of Lake Salvador into the Delta Farms E.11 U.
should. be.-retarded by' the placing of spoil on the north and south
banks of the Intracoastal Waterway and possibly the vegetating of
these spoil banks to retard erosion from the.lake. Mitigation measures
on other permits issued in the vicinity may require the placement of
soil in this area to combat erosion.

POLICY 12. There shall be no illegal dumping in this E.M.U. of any
liquid or solid waste. Existing tank storage-sites and well sites
shall follow all applicable guidelines as specified by the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources regarding the storing and disposal of
wastes from mud pits, well construction, etc.

POLICY 13. Permanent human habitation dwellings should be discouraged
througho this E.M.U.-due to severe flooding potential from storms,
and lack of adequate water and sewerage facilities. Any permits as-
sociated with recreational or any other type of permanent dw6llings
shall require adequate on site seweraze and aroof nf compliance with
solid waste disposal and collection regulations of Lafourche Parish.
Besides these a-uidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in the
F.E-.I.S. of the-Louisiana Coastal. Zone Management Program shall apply
to this E.M.U.

Where E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state concern", the policies
are intended only as recommendations to-the state program managers and
are not legally binding on the permit applicant or the state CZM
Program.

NORTH LITTLE LAKE

LOCATION: Upper portion of the coastal zone on the east side of
79ayou Lalourche. Discrete boundaries include Bayou Perot on the
east, Lake Salvador on the north, the Delta Farms levee and the
South Lafourche levee system to the west and Clovelly E.M.U. and
the Clovelly Farms and Scully Canal to.the south.

SOILS:. Organic wetland soils underlay the entire management unit..
Under the brackish marsh areas are organi.c layers of peat under-
lain by clay. The same is true for the fresh marsh developed soils.

VEGETATION: Vegetation ranges from brackish marsh through most of
the south and east portions of the unit to fresh marsh in the north-
western section. Some spoil bank vegetatiorx, primarily shrub and
woody succession vegetation has grown up along the older spoil banks
in the intensively channeled areas.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL IF DRAINED: The entire study unit has'a Very
High subsidence-potential (greater than 51 inches).

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL DUE TO CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION: High, due to the
nature of the soils. A large acreage of land in the northeast
corner along Bayou Perot has been lost to channelization.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATUES, The North Little Lake Study Unit is a low
Ti-ii-n-g(less than 1 foot'MSL) marshland. Spoil deposits add relief
along canals in the Delta Farms and 'West Delta Farms Oil Field, and
the Little Temple Oil and Gas Field in the eastern part of the study
unit. * Several pipeline canals cross the study unit from the Cut
Off Oil and Gas Fields, and the Bayou Poignard Gas Field to Little
Lake and the Intracoastal Canal. The largest area of channeling is
along Bayou Perot in the Delta Farms and West Delta Farms Petroleum
Fields.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire area is flood prone.

IMPORTANT FARMLANDS: None

USE OF LAND: The area is wetland in a semi-altered state. Much of
the land has been devoted to mineral extraction. The Intracoastal
Waterway, forming the northern boundary of the study unit, is an
important interstate shipping link. The entire Little Lake area is
important for its trapping and fisheries resources. Land is primar-
ily brackish marsh in a semi-altered state. Some fresh marsh area
occurs in the northwest portion of the unit. The West Delta Farms
Little Temple ', and Cut Off Oil and Gas Field areas have been chan-
nelized extensively and the marsh is undergoing deterioration. The
marsh immediately east of Delta Farms is in fairly good condition.
There are extensive spoil banks along the In 'tracoastal Waterway and
in the oil and gas fields. Some of these banks have been colonized
with brushy or shrub vegetation. Elevations in the unit are at or
near sea level.

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES:

A. Geological Features: None

B. Botanical Features: None

C. Zoological.Features:

1 Mid-Barataria Basin: This area is a large land and
water mass in Lafou che and Jefferson Parish. Flood
protection levees and east.-west channeling have-added
to land loss and saltwater intrusion problems'. The
Barataria Basin represents a typical nursery ground
for many of the important commercial fisheries' species,
included menhaden, shrimp, and blue crab.

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL: Little Lake is considered an excellent
area.for hunting, tishing, and tranping. Camps are found scattered
through the study unit.

HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES: Freshwater grades down to saltwater at vary-.
ing depths of one-hundred (100) to four-hundred (400) feet. Water
is excellent for fish, shellfish, and wildlife propagation and
secondary contact redreation.

HISTORIC/CULTURAL/ARCHE.OLC.GICAL:
q

A. Historic Sites: None

B. Cultural Sites: None

C. Archeological Sites:

LF 18 Known Shell Midden Northwest Shore of Little Lake
LF 19 Known Shell Midden Northwest Shore of Little Lake
LF 20 Known Shell Midden Northwest Shore of Little Lake
LF 2-12 Known Shell Midden Northwest Shore of Little Lake
LF 23 Known Shell klidden Northwest Shore of Little Lake
LF 89 Known Shell Midden on south shore of Lake Salvador
LF 91 Known Shell. Midden on south shore of Lake Salvador
LF 13 Known Shell Midden on south shore of Lake Salvador
LF 29 Known Shell Midden on*s*outh shore of Lake Salvador
LF 14 Known Shell Midden on south shore of Lake Salvador

GOALS

Slow down the rate of saltwater intrusion into the north-
western portion of the E.M.U.

2. Maintain the integrity of the relatively undisturbed fresh/
brackish marsh area in the central portion of the E.M.U. by
imposing mitigation conditions on any dredge and fill 1:)er-
mits issued in this area that retard marsh deterioration

3. Peduce erosion and new channelization in the Little Temnle,
West Delta Farras, and Cut Off Oil and Gas Fields

4. Rebuild marshland in the oil fields mentioned in Goal 3
whenever feasible by mitigation conditions applied to new
CUP permits issued in these areas

5. Utilize the Intracoastal Waterway as a barrier to further
saltwater intrusion to the norih of the E.M.U.

POLICIES

This E.M.U. is exclusively wetland, primarily fresh-brackish marshland.
The North Little Lake area is suffering problems of saltwater intrusion
and land deterioration along its north, east, and southern flank in
4 areas:

1. West Delta Farms Oil and Gas Field
2. Little-Temple Oil and Gas Field
3. Cut Off Oil. and Gas Field
4. Gulf Intracoastal Waterway

Several of the following policies deal with halting or at least re-
ducing land loss and saltwater intrusion problems into the interior
portion of this unit (which is not as extensively channelized.)

POLICY 1. All General Policies for-the Lafourche Coastal Zone shall
appry-in-this E.M.U., unless modified by specific E.M.U. or sub-E.M.U.
policies stated in this E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. Along the Intracoastal Waterway, permits for dredging.should
require that any spoil be placed continuously orr the*north side of this
canal to retard saltwater intrusion north of this area.

POLICY 3. In the West Delta Farms Oil and Gas Field, Little Temple
Oil and Uas Field, and Cut Off-Oil and Gas-Field as outlined on the
E.M.U..Land Cover Map, any permits for- dredging and filling activities
should. require that dredged materials, shall be spread so as to create
new marsh sites whenever possible instead of placing spoil-on adjacent
wetlands. This means placing spoil in eroding wetlands so as to
create new sites for marsh regeneration.

POLICY 4. Along the north., west, and southern portion of the West Delta.
Farms Oil and Gas Field, the north and west perimeter of the Little
Temple Oil and Gas Field and the-east perimeter of the Cut Off'Oil and
Gas Field, permits issued for dredge and fill activities should require
that spoil banks be placed continuously along the outside banks of,any
new canals dredged on the perimeter of these three fields so as to
retard the spread of marsh erosion and saltwater intrusion into the
central portior of the E.M.U. (see land cover map).

POLICY 5. Within the portion of the' Little Lake E.M.U. outside of the
three major oil and gas fields, permits for dredge-and fill activities
should require that spoil be spread out so as not to form a spoil bank
but instead to serve as a base for mew marsh growth in areas suffering
erosion.

POLICY 6. Along or near the perimeter specified in Policy 4,.outside
the oil and gas areas-, the same conditions should apply in Policy 4
regarding the creation of spoil banks to retard saltwater intrusion.

POLICY 7. Existing canals should be used wherever possible to access
new drilling sites in the three oil fields occurring in this E.M.U.
New dredging should be kept to an absolute minimum here and subject
to conditions stated elsewhere in these policies.

POLICY 8. All canals dredged for any purposes throughout the E.M.U.
should be plugged with earth or rip rap after abandonment to reduce
the effects of saltwater intrusion as per Lafourche Coastal-Zone Generai.
Policies 2 and 3. This especially applies to canals emanating from
the south and east portion of the E.M.U.
POLICY 9. Any additional reclamation activities in the fresh or t
brackrs-hmarsh areas adjacent to existing reclaimed areas should be
discouraged due to poor soil conditions. t
POLICY 10. Several canals are recommended for earthen dams or plugs
as per eral Policy 2 and 3 of the Lafourche Coastal Zone Program@
as indicated on the E.M.U. overlay map:

Any new major permits issued nearby to this area should require as
part of all of the mitigation requirements the participation in-
the construction of dams on one or more of the proposed dam sites as
indicated on the E.M.U. map overlay.

shall be no illegal dumping in this EX.U. of an
POLICY 11. There y
liqu id solid waste. Existing tank storage sites and well sites
shall follow all applicable guidelines as specified by the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources regarding the storing and disposal
of wastes from mud pits, well construction, etc.

POLICY 12. Permanent h-uman-habitation dwellings should be discouraged
throughout this E.M.U. due to severe flooding potential from storms,
and lack of adequate water and sewerage facilities. Any permits as-
sociated with recreational or any other type of permanent dwellings
shall require adequate on site sewerage and proof of compliance with
solid waste disposal and collection regulations of Lafourche Parish....

Besides these guidelines, all co astal use guidelines as stated in the
F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall..apply
to this E.M.U.

Where E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state concern", the policies
are intended only as recommendations to the state program managers and
are not legally.bi.iding on the permit applicant or the state CZM
program.

Figure 4.4

BAYOU POINTE AU CHIEN

sou
LAFOURCH,

I A 15A
c

-*&goo*

RACCOLIM E.K U

BULLY CAMP

1 0 1 2 3- WLES
SCALE

BAYOU POINTE-AU-CHIEN

LOCATION: Upper portion of coastal zone on the west side of Bayou
Lafourche. Discrete boundaries include Louisiana 24 on the north
and Bayou Pointe-au-Chien on the west and southwest. The eastern
boundary is contiguous with the*Bully Camp E.M.U. and the Raccourci
E.M.U.

SOILS: Along the Bayou Pointe-au!.-Chien natural ridge, soils range.
from Commerce-Mhoon Association soils to swamp soils. Commerce-
Mhoon Association soils are found adjacent to the upper portion of
Bayou Pointe-au-Chien and Bayou Blue. These soils are gray silt
loam surface soils underlain by gray silty clay loam. Sharkey-
Tunica Association soils are gray clayey soils underlain by gray
clay subsoils. These soils are found next to Commerce-Mhoon soils-
along Bayou Pointe-au-Chien and along Highway 24 and Bayou Blue.
Swamp soils, organic surfaces underlain by gray clay
,, are found in
a narrow band from the lower portion of Bayou Pointe-au-Chien and
Bayou Blue, where the swamp spreads out along Highway 24. The rest
of the land in this study unit is mostly freshwatermarshland.
These soils are'organic materials underlain by gray silty clay or
clay. When flooded, the organic layer will separate from the clay
and float.

VEGETATION: Vegetation along the Bayou Pointe-au-Chien and Bayou-
-flue ridges is alluvial hardwoods (oak) grading into swamp (tupelo-
gum, cypress) vegetation- Fresh to brackish marsh plants predominant
in the unit between alluvial soils and Grand Bayou. (See land cover
map)

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL-17' DRAINED: Directly adjacent to the Bayou
Blue and Bayou Pointe-au-Chien ridges,'subsidence potential-is none;
moderate subsidence potential is associated 7itti.those areas having
swamp soils along the bayou ridges: very high subsidence potential.
for the freshwater marsh areas.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL DUE TO CHANNEL CONSTRUCTIM. Land loss potential.
is low to medium along bayou ridges grading into swamp; high land
loss potential for all marsh areas.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: The majority of the study unit is low lying
marsh areas. Higge-r natural ridges as high as 5 feet are found
along the north western portions of Bayou Blue and Bayou Pointe-au-
Chien. A road extends from below Klondyke,along the Terrebonne-
Lafourche-Parish boundary (Bayou Pointe-au-Chien) to the'Pointe-au-
Chien Community (Highway 665). St. Louis Canal roughly paxallels
the road at a distance of about 1 to 2 miles, eventually converging
with Bayou Pointe-au-Chien. Two large pipeline canals cross the
study unit at an angle from the St. Louis Canal to Grand Bayou Canal.
Several other location canals cross the unit, notably two large
canals enter Grand Bayou.

The Pointe-au-Chien road extends as far as Cut Off Canal.. Al-
though the road is-technically in Terrebonne Parish, it does
provide access to numerous homes and camps on the Lafourche side
of Bayou Pointe-au-Chien. Access is provided by several, bridges
and unimproved roads deviate from the Pointe-au-.:Chien road and
Highway 24 to oil and gas well locations and to areas used as
residential or camp sites.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The majority of the area is flood prone.
Lana along the higher natural levees have little flood problems
and excellent drainage.

IMPORTANT FAIUILANDS: Soils classified as Prime farmland quality
are found along the Bayou Blue and Bayou Pointe-au-Chien roads.
These areas-are of limited extent.

USES OF LAND: The majority of the study unit is wetland. Trapping
and commercial and sports fishing are excellent throughout the unit.
.Residential and commercial areas are small and clustered along
Bayou Pointe-au-Chien near Grandbois. Most of the unit is part of
Pointe-au-Chien Wildlife Management Area, composed of approximately-
28,000 acres. The area is fairly unique in*that extensive channeii
zation of the fresh marsh and swamp area has not occurred.

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES: The area. is part of the Pointe-au-Chien
Wildlife Management Area (approximately 28,000 acres). Marshlands
are ideal for production of waterfowl. food (widgeon grass, southern
najas, three-cornered grass) and waterfowl game species and fur-
bearing animals are found throughout the unit.

RECREATInNAL POTENTIAL: The area is excellent for freshwater and
brackish water fishing and for waterfowl hunting.

HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES: The area has little or no potable drinking
water, except occasional lenses of freshwater floating on salt-
water. Water table is at the surface-for most of the area.

HISTORIC/CULTURAL/AR =OLOGICAL:

A. Historic Sites: None..

B. Cultural Sites: The community of Pointe-au-Chien is in
both Lafourche and Terrebonne Parishes. The actual name
of the community has been disputed for some time. Most
literature and maps and numerous inhabitants record the
name as Pointe-au-Chien (Point-of-the Dogs). Fowever,
many people of the community claim oral tradition has
taught them the name as Pointe-Aux-Chenes (Point-of-the
Oaks).

The land surrounding the Pointe-au-Chien community has been under
dispute for many years. While 'many residents live in Lafourche
Parish, they depend upon Terrebonne Parish for services. The only
roads into the area originate in Terrebonne. Other questions of

ownership of the land have been raised in the past by members of
the Houmas Indian Tribe. Tribal members claim.all.of the land in.
the Pointe-au-Chien area, as well as most of the coastal areas
from Terrebonne to Plaquemines.

C. Archeological-Sites:

LF 32 Known Prehistoric Indian Mound on Bayou Blue
LF 31 Known Shell Midden on Bayou Rlue

PROBLEMS:

1. Saltwater intrusion up Grand Bayou through trenass Tl into
freshwater causing land deterioration

2. General brackish marsh deterioration south of United Gas
Pipeline,Canal

C70ALS

1. Reduce saltwater intrusion into this unit

2. Protect the fragile freshwater habitats within the E.M.U.
-from degradation and/or destruction

3. Preserve the integrity of those wetland areas not yet ex-
tensively channelized in this E.M.U.

4. Protect those areas set aside as wildlife area (Pointe-au-
Chien Area)

5. Construct saltwater barriers across known channels causing
saltwater intrusion

6. Impose mitigation condition upon dredge and fill.permits so
as to use spoil to create new marshland and/or retard salt-
water intrusion in this unit

POLICIES FOR BAYOU POINTE-AU-CHIEN

Most of the Poiate-au-Chiea E.M.U. has been relatively free of channel-
ization and marsh-deterioration, i.e., the area is still very much
intact except in the extreme southern portion. The Pointe-au-Chien
Wildlife Management Area covers much of the unit. Since this-area is
utilized for wildlife management, is relatively intact and has a. large
fresh marsh buffer between the swamp and the brackish area, it is
recommended that the area be-maintained in the present condition as
much as possible. To that end, the following specific policies shall
apply to implement the goals and objectives and general policy for the
management of this area.

POLICY 1. All General Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone. shall
apply in this E.M.U.,*unless modified by specific E.M.U. or sub-E.M.U.
policies stated in this E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. Within the brackish marsh area indicated on the Pointe-au-
Chien LaFd Cover Map (red) permits for-dredging and fill activities
should require that any spoil be placed continuously on the side of
the canal or boat slip, so as to retard saltwater intrusion.

POLICY 3. South of the canal labeled South Coast Gas Pipeline Canal
on the Land Cover Map of the.Pointe-au-Chien E.M,'U., dredged materials
should be spread so as to create new marsh sites whenever-possible
instead of- merely spreading@spoil on adjacent wetlands. This means
placing spoil in eroding wetlands so as to create new sites for marsh-
regeneration.

POLICY 4. Any spoi 1 dredged from South Coast Gas Pipeline Canal as
indicateil on the Land Cover Map should be*placed on the northern bank
to retard the spread of brackish marsh and more saline water into the
fresher areas of the E.K.U.

POLICY 5. Existing pipeline corridors and canals primarily the South
Coast and United Gas Pipeline Canals should be used to the maximum
extent practicable throughout the E.M.U., when conducting activities
that would result in dredging and wetland destruction if this procedure
is not followed.

POLICY 6. North of South Coast Gas Pipeline Canal dredged materials
should be spread out-so as to create-minimal disturbance of the natural
drainage and nutrient exchange.

POLICY 7. All canals dredged for any purpose should be plugged with
earth or rip rap after abandonment to reduce the effects of saltwater
intrusions. This especially applies to all canals running in a north-
south direction and also any canals south of South Coast Gas'Pipeline
as per the Lafourche Coastal.Zone General Policies 2 and 3.

POLICY 8. Within the boundary of the Pointe-au-Chien Wildlife
Management AreA, any wetlands altered or destroyed should be required
to be replaced by means of spoil placement and revegetation of this
spoil as close to the disturbed site as possible and within the
management area.

POLICY 9. Any additional reclamation activities in the swamp forest,
freshwater or brackish marsh areas adjacent to the Pointe-au-Chien
and Bayou Blue natural levee ridges should be discouraged due to poor
soil conditions and propensity of the areas to flood.

POLICY 10. There s hall be no illegal dumping in this E.M.U. of any
liquid solid waste. Existing tank storage sites; and well sites shallt
follow all applicable guidelines as specified by the Louisiana Depart-
ment of Natural Resources regarding the storing and disposal of wastes
from mud pits, well construction, etc.

POLICY 11. Human habitation on the non-wetland portion of the Bayou
fflue natuFal levee should not be diecouraged provided all solid waste
and sewerage requirements of the parish and state are met and pre-
cautions against flooding required by the Parish Development Permit
Officer for the Federal Flood Insurance Program are met.

STRUCTURAL MODIFICATION POLICIES

1. There is a saltwater intrusion problem nor,,:h of the South Coast
Gas Pipeline Canal along canal T1, (An old trenass that has widened
due to erosion). Marsh deterioration die-back is progressing
rapidly on both sides of this canal from Grand Bayou. It is rec-
ommended that an earthen plug be placed across this canal to halt
the deterioration as per the Lafourche Coastal Zone General Policies
2 and 3. Any permits issued for dredge and fill activities nearby
to this area should include as part of any mitigation requirement,
the placement of materials at the mouth of this trenass canal to
retard the saltwater intrusion problem here.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in the
F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall apply
t.o this E.M.U.
Where E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state"concern",'the policies
are intended only as recommendations to the state program managers and
are not legally binding on the permit applicant or the state CZIA,
program.

BULLY CAnP

LOCATION: The n`o'orthern boundary of Bully Camp is Bayou Blue, the
eastern boundary of Bully Camp is the South Lafou.rche levee system.
The southern boundary is a series of oil and gas access canals and
the Raccourci E.M.U. The western boundary of the E.M.T.T. is Grand
Bayou and the Pointe-au-Chien E.M.U.

SOILS: Vast area of fresh to slightly brackish marsh soils. These
are organic layers underlain by gray silty clay orclay. If flooded,
organic layers will separate and float. There is a narrow strip of
alluvial soils along the Bayou 13lue levee ridge. Soils on the levee
are Commerce-Mhoon Association soils grading into Sharkey-Tunica
Association soils.

VEGETATION: Alluvial and swamp vegetation (oak, cypress, tupelo-
gum) grade into freshwater marsh vegetation,(i.e. cattail, alli-
gator weed and maiden cane.) Marshes become brackish due to tidal
fluctuations and.saltwater intrusion. I@Toody vegetation has also
begun to grow along oil and gas canal spoil banks.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL-IF DRAINED: Moderate along Fighway 24, Very
High due to the nature of the soils in the marsh. lands.' Subsi-
dence has been 4 to 5 feet due to mineral extraction, especially
sulphur extraction.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL DUE TO CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION: Figh for marsh
lands, Medium to Low along levee ridges.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: Highway 24 forms the northern boundary of
the unit-. Elevations are 2 to 4- feet MSL along the Bayou Blue
levee ridge grading down,to lower lying-marsh lands. Several
major bayous and canals cross the unit including Grand Bayou,
Grand Bayou Canal, Bayou Blue and Bayou Bouillon. Numerous
location canals cross the Sully Camp Oil and Gas Field.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire study unit is flood prone.

IMPORTANT FARMLANDS:. Soils classified as Prime- Farmland are found
along Highway 24.

USE OF LAND: A large tract of land is devoted to mineral extrac-
tion at the Bully Camp Oil and Gas Field. It is one of the most
heavily impacted areas due to mineral extraction, especially sul-
phur-mining. The sulphur mine, located in this F.M.U., is a unique
-economic resource, one of the few onshore sulphur mines in the
coastal areas of Louisiana. The land is also part of the Pointe-
au-Chien Tildlife Management Area, an important wildlife habitat.
The area is used for both commercial and recreational hunting 'and
trapping.

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES: The Pointe-au-Chien Wildlife Manage-
ment Area, an important wildlife habitat consisting of approximately
28,000 acres, is partially within this study unit.

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL: Excellent area for hunting and for fishing.
At one time the area was known for deer hunt-ing. However, subsi-
dence of the land has removed most of the deer habitat. The area
is a tremendous recreational resource, attracting people from all
over the state.

HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES: The area has little or no potable fresh water
other than occasional lenses of fresh water floatinF on salt water.
The water table is at the surface.

HISTORIC/CULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL:

A. Historic Sites:

1. The Lake Bully Camp Sulphur Mine.

B. Cultural Sites: None

C. Archeological Sites:

LF 31 Known Shell Midden on Highway 24

PROBLEMS NOTED:

1. 'Very high subsidence potential in marsh lards if drained

2. High land loss potential throughout the marsh lands due
to channel construction

3. Flood hazard potential throughout the area*

4. Loss of excellent wildlife habitats and recreational areas
due to loss of land from channel construction and mineral
extraction

5. Saltwater intrusion into-fresh water marshes

GOALS

1. To protect the remaining fresh marsh in this E.M.U. from
erosion and saltwater intrusion

2. To contain-the,,Iarge open water area (Area A) from spreading
any further

3. Reduce saltwater intrusion by use of spoil and dams in south-
ern portion of the E.M.U.

POLICIES FOR'BULLY CAM .P
The Bully Camp E.M.U. exhibits a varied environment. The extreme t
northern section contains some of the only remaining swamp forest in
the Lafourche Coastal Zone as well as fresh marsh. The southern
section is highly eroded due to the effects of subsidence and erosion
from mineral extraction activities. Two sub areas have been identified
in this E.M.U.

Area A - The southern portion of the E.M.U. cat egorized
by oil and gas access canals and large areas
of open water caused by subsidence associated
with the Bully Camp Sulphur Mine.

Area B - Largely intact brackish and fresh marsh area with
small patches of swamp forest and natural levee
in the extreme northern portion,

GENERAL POLICIES

POLICY 1. All General Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone shall
apply in this E.M.U. unless modified by specific E.M.U. or sub-E.M.U.
policies stated*in this E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. There s hall be no illegal dumping in this E.M.U. of any
liquid or solid waste. Existing tank-storage sites and well sites shallt
follow all applicable guidelines as specified by the Louisiana Depart-
ment of Natural Resources'regarding the storing and disposal of wastes
from mud pits, well construction, etc. F

POLICIES FOR AREA A

The object of policies for"this area is to contain the water area in.
the south as well as preserve the intact area immediately north of this
water area. (See Area C of Raccourci for Policies to contain the water
area in the south.)

POLICY 3. All new east - west canals should have spoil banks placed
on their south side to retard the spread of the water area in Bully Campl,

POLICY 4. No canals should be connected, Unless there is no other
econonj ically feasible alternative to accomplish the requested activity,
Both qnds of the connector should be plugged and the canal backfilled
after the activity is complete.

POLICY 5. Any dredging in the Grand Canal should require that spoil
be placed continuously along the east bank to retard saltwater intrusion.--

POLICY 6. At le ast one dam should be placed on Bayou Blue as indicated
on the E.M.U. map, to retard saltwater intrusion into the freshwater
zones. Construction of this dam shall be accomplished by imposing
mitigation conditions on permits in the area.

POLICY 7. Existing canals should be used wherever possible and
new canals into the relatively intact brackish water marsh in the
northern part of Area A should be kept to the minimum number and
length necessary to accomplish the activity and subject to the
Lafourche General Policies.

POLICV 8. The series of existing oil and gas access canals in the
eastern portion of Area A near the South Lafourche Levee should
have a dam placed near the mouth of the main canal as indicated
on the Bully Camp E.M.U. Construction of this dam should be
accomplished by imposing mitigation conditions on permits in the
area of this proposed construction.

POLICY 9. A dam should be constructed along the Grand Canal to
slow down saltwater intrusion from the south into the area.as in-
dicated on the E.M.U. map. The construction of this dam shall be
accomplished as per the method outlined in Policy 7.

POLICY 10. In suitable areas, spoil from dredging activities may
be required to be spread out in ponding areas to encourage new
marsh growth.

AREA B

Area B contains the only fresh marsh remaiainz in.the Lafourche
Coastal Zone on the west side of Bayou Lafourche. It also contains
one of the few swamp forest areas.

POLICY 11. Board roads are possible.in this area. As such they are
subject to the Lafourche General Policies.

POLICY 12. A dam should be ulaced on the Grand Canal to retard the
northward spread of saltwate'r as indicated on the E.H.U. map. Con-
struction of this dam should be accomPlished as stated in Policy 7
of this E.M.U.

POLICY 13. North - south canals should beav6ided especially those
that connect with water bodies to the south. If these canals are
necessary, they should be plugged at both ends and backfilled as Der
the Lafourche General Policies.

POLICY 14. Any additional reclamation activities in the swamp
forest, fresh water or brackish marsh areas adjacent to the Bayou
Blue natural levee ridges will be discouraged due to poor soil con-
ditions and propensity of the areas to flood.

POLICY 15.. Any east - west canals in the southern-portion of this
area shouldhave spoil placed on their southern bank to retard erosion'
and saltwater intrusion.

POLICY 16. In suitable areas, spoii from dredRing activity may
be required to be spread out in ponding areas to encouraae new
.marsh growth, especially in the ponded fresh marsh area adjacent
to the Bayou Blue natural levee.

POLICY 17. Dredging on Grand Canal should require that spoil be
placed continuously on both banks to retard erosion and saltwater
intrusion.

POLICY 18. Human habitation on the non-wetland portion of the
Bayou Blue natural levee should not be discouraRed provided all
solid-waste and sewerage requirements of the parish and state are
met and Precautions against flooding required by the Parish Develop-
ment Permit Officer for the Federal Flood Insurance Program are.
met.

POLICY 19. No solid waste or hazardous waste shall be disposed of
on the natural levee, non-wetland areas,unless solid waste dis-
posal regulations are met by the disposal site.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall
apply to this E.M.U.
Where E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state concern", the policies
are intended only as recommendations to the state program managers and
are not legally binding on the permit applicant or the state CZM
program.

SOUTH LAFOURCHE-A, B,'C

_T.QrATT QNL South Lafourche A encompasses all the land covered by
the new South Lafourche levee currently under construction.. The
northern boundary of this E.M.U. is the Intracoastal Waterway.
The eastern boundary is the levee, basically at the 40 Arpent
.Line and the Environmental Management Unit of North Little Lake,
Clovelly, Clovelly Farms and South Barataria. The western
boundaries are the levee and Environmental Management Units of
Golden Meadow, Raccourci, and Bully Camp. South Lafourche B and
C are currently drained by small protection levees and used main-
ly for agricultural purposes. They may be included in the new
levee system but basically have a similar environment.

South Lafourche B is bordered on the north and east by the Clovelly
Environmental Management Unit, on the south by the South Barataria
Environmental Management Unit, and on the west by the South
Lafourche A Environmental Management Unit..

South Lafourche C Environmental Management Unit is bordered on the
north, south, and west by the Bully Camp Environmental Management
Unit, and on the east by the-South Lafourche A Environmental Manage-
ment Unit.and the South L-afourche Levee.
SOI@S: Drained, and brackish freshwater marsh consisting of or-
ganic material several'feet thick and underlain by gra-y clay. A
@minor part of the land has a thin organic surface layer-underlain
by a gray clay. Soil has slow permeability and, thus, is subject
to flooding. Along Bayou Lafourche, Sharkey-Tunica Association
soils are found. These are alkaline soils, poorly drained and-sub-
ject to flooding.

VEGETATION: Modified wetlands. Surface features*and hydrology
have been altered such that natural marsh vegetation (freshwate-r
and brackish marsh) no longer grows. Land between Delta Farms and
Clovelly Farms is altered fresh water marsh. Most of the area is- -
shrub and pasture. Wooded areas are found south to (.'Talliano along
the bayou. Scattered stands of cypress stands can be found in the
southern tip of the unit in the drained section.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL.IF DRAINED: Moderate-on drained freshwater
and brackish marsh soils.. None on mineral soils that have no or-
ganic layers. These are-the alluvial soils alorg Bayou Lafourche.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL DUE TO CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION: Medium along
Bayou Lafourche. High between Delta and Mo_v=ey Farms.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: The entire'area. is mainly flat, some areas
having subsided below sea level after this E.M.U. was drained and
leveed. Elevations are generally less than +1 MSL. Land directly
adjacent to Bayou Lafourche along the small natural levee varies

from slightly above +5 feet.MSL above Belle Amie to +1 to 2 feet
MSL at the southern end of the natural levee near Golden Meadow.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The area is within the new protection levee
being constructed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.. This new
levee will be as high as 14 feet and will protect the area from
hurricane floods. The net grade elevation of the levee will be
13 feet MSL at its southern end (Golden Meadow) and 8.5 feet VSL
at the northern end (Larose). Floodgates will cross Lafourche at
the.Town of Golden Meadow and at Larose, The navigation width of
each gate will be 56 feet. The protection levee rill roughly
follow the 40 Arpent Canal through most of this unit.

'IMPORTANT FARMLANDS: Prime farmlands are located directlv ad-
jacent to Bayou Lafourche. Farmlands of statewide-importance can
-be found throughout the study unit near Bayou Lafourche.

USE OF LAND. Strip residential and commercial development are
the dominating uses along the bank of Bayou.Lafourche. Louisiana
Highways 1 and 308 are the major land transportation arteries.
The two highways are connected by bridges at Larose, Cut Off,
Golden Meadow, an@d Galliano. Bayou Lafourche is'a major water
transportation artery. Princil@al tonnage items include shells,
sulphur,. water,drilling mud, crude oil, cement, and steel. Shrimp
and oyster tonnage is smaller but of a higher value. A large
amount of the shipping traffic occurs in the Dortion of the bayou
between the Gulf of Mexico and the Intracoastal Waterway at Larose.

INIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES: None.

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL: Access to hunting and fishing areas is
available via Bayou LaTourche and Louisiana Highways 308 and 1 in-
to the adjacent swamp and marsh lands.

H)MROLOGIC RESOURCES: Normal tidal effects in Bayou Lafourche are
observable as far inland as Breton Canal, north of Golden Meadow.
The major source. of inflow into Bayou Lafourche is rainfall runoff
and controlled diversion (260 cubic feet per second) at Donaldson-
ville., Freshwater is found to a depth of 300 feet' from Larose to
below Clovelly Farms. However, this water is not fit for human
consumption. Residents are served by water pumped from the Missi-
ssippi River at Donaldsonville.

.HISTORIC/CULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL:

A. -Historic Sites:

1. Petit Caporal: Shrimp boat on permanent display in
Golden Meadow; built around 1854, oldest existine
shrimp boat known in Louisiana

B. Cultural Sites: The east banks of Bayou.Lafourche are
largely-residential and scattered commercial development.
Housing along the bayou is closely spaced due to a lack
of developable high land and.a preference tb live on the
bayou and the major transportation routes.

Golden Meadow is*the first high land from the Gulf 6f
Mexico. Incorporated in 1950, the town was populated
by people from Grand Isle and Leeville fleeing-disas-
trous storms. Originally a fishing, agricultural
community; oil and gas development brought in more
people-from other parts of Lafourche Parish, Louisiana,
Texas, and other states. Golden Meadow is also the
site of the "Golden Meadow International.Tarpon Rodeo".
Other large communities in this study unit include
Larose, Cut Off and Galliano. Two large festivals are
held each summer in Galliano - the "Louisiana Oyster
Festival" and the "-Cajun Festival". Annual Blessing
of the Shrimp Fleet occur in both Galliano and Golden
Meadow.

C. Archeological Sites: None.

PROBLEMS NOTED:

1. Stress on environment due to population demand for more
land

2. Low subsidence potential and medium.land loss away from
Bayou Lafourche

3. Sev@age disposal problems due to high water table and low
permeability of soils in the inhabited areas of the study
unit

4. Saltwater intrusion

GOALS

1. Encourage continued development of commetcial, industrial,
and residential development

2. For South Lafourche B and C, encourage existing uses until,
or if,new South Lafourche levee system surrounds the area
and makes it fit for more intensive human habitation

POLICIES FOR SOUTH LAFOURCHE A, B, C

POLICIES FOR SOUTH LAFOURCHE A

South Lafourche "A" contains almost all of the population in the
Lafourche Coastal Zone. It is protected from flooding by a series
of small levees and the incompleted South Lafourche Levee and
Floodgate system. Upon completion of the new levee system with
its increas6d levee heights, floodgates, and a %system of pumping
stations, the area will be afforded significantly greater pro-
tection from storm flooding and will offer-the only reason-ably
safe place to live within the Lafourche Coastal Zone.

POLICY 1. The General Policies of the Lafourche Coastal Zone
will not apply to this E.M.U., since the former wetland areas have
already been drained and altered for-human habitation.

POLICY 2. Permanent human habitation is encouraged here due to
the larg@ areas of open space still available and protected by the
levee system.
POLIC7 3.. Industrial and commercial development is encouraged
'@hroughoTit this E.M.U. as long as these activities do not signifi-
cantly add to water pollution in the surrounding-wetland areas.

POLICY 4. Due to poor foundation conditions inherent.in drained
wetland goils, espec'ially,organic marsh soils,.careful attention
should be paid to requiring adequate foundations for homes, busi-
nesses, roads. etc. built on these soils. Use of flexible
connectors for gas lines, and other innovative materials and tech-
niques will avoid costly maintenance and dangerous conditions in
these areas.

POLICY 5. The water table should be maintained relatively high
in drained wetland areas by the use of the "wet system" of
drainage. This will minimize the subsidence of the land and
allow easier forced drainage.

POLICY 6. Development of the area inclosed by the South Lafourche
"A" levee should be closely coordinated with the Lafourche Parish
Water District #1, the onlv water source for the entire region.

POLICY 7. Recreational access to wetlands, lakes and bayous
surrounding the Sou.th Lafourche levee system should be maintained
and expanded through the parish and state recreation programs.
:'7 This includes construction of boat ramps and/or marina areas to
facilitate access to the wetland recreational resources.

POLICY 8. The Bayou Lafourche clean-out campaign initiated by the
Greater Tafourche Port Commission should be encouraged to continue
to remove hazards to navigationas well as unsightly trash and
debris.

POLICY 9. The construction of relocated Highway 1 should be com-
pleted as quickly as possible to allow proper evacuation of the
lower coastal zone into this area, as well as alleviate traffic
congestion along current Highway 1.

POLICY 10. Solid waste and hazardous waste dumping prohibitions
should be strictly enforced by the coastal zone program as well as
other applicable programs. Disposal of wastes should be accom-
plished here as per parish health and sanitary regulations.
Anti-litter laws should be strictly enforced.

POLICY 11. Bulkheading along Bayou Lafourche should be maintained
in good condition to prohibit erosion from boat wakes onto Highway
1 or 308, or the residential,'commercial, or industrial establish-
men'..s along the bayou.

POLICIES FOR SOUTH LAFOURCHE B AND C

It ..-'-'s undecided at this time whether all or-parts of the areas
protected by these levee systems are to be included in the new
South Lafourcbe Levee System. Currently the area is drained and
only minimally protected from flooding. Current land uses are
mainly agricultural.

POLICY 12. If the South Lafourche Levee System encompasses all
or parts of these two E.M.U.'s, those parts protected by the new
levee.will have South Lafourche;Policies 1 - 11 applied to.them.

POLICY 13.' Drained areas in South Lafourche B and C not protected
by the new levee system should have land uses consistent with those
currently in effect,(i.e. agricultural or pasture uses.) Human
habitation should be discouraged here due to flooding damage.po-
tential from storms and inadequate drainage.

POLIC7 14. The general policies of the Lafourche Coastal Zone
will noT-apply to these E.M.U.'s,since the former wetland areas
.have already been drained and altered 'for human habitation.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall
apply to this 'E.M.U.

Where E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state concern", the policies
are intended only as recommendations to the state program managers
and are not legally binding on the permit applicant or the state CZM
program.

RgUre 4.5
SOUTH LAFOURCHE

CLOVELLY FARMS

CLOVELLY
NORTH LITTLE LAKE
E. M. U.
CANAL

OFF

LITTLE LAKE

S6 LAFOURCHE

E.M.U.
was low

LOOP
PIPELINE
PORRIDOR

RACCOURCI
EMU.

0001, SOUTH BARMARIA
GOLDEN M
E.M.U.
SOUTH
LAFOU@CHE
Ell

0 1 2 3 4MLES

CLOVELLY FARMS E.M.U.

SOILS: The entire study unit is drained freshwater marsh. Soils
cons st of organic layers that are underlaim by clays. The land
has been leveed and drained. by pumps. Organic laye"rs may.separate
and float if -flooded.

LOCATION: The E.M.U. is bordered on the north by the Scully Canal
and Nor@h-Little Lake E.M.U., on the east and south by the Clovelly
E.M.U., on.the west by the South Lafourche lev'ee-and the South
Lafourche "A" E.M.U.

VEGETATION: Modified wetiand vegetation is found throughout the
area WE land is not cultivated.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL IF DRAINED: ArE?a has already been drained and
has undergone subsidencg--t'ominus five(-5) feet in some localities.
Slow continual subsidence is to be expected over time as organic
layers continue to oxidize-.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL DUE TO CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION: Medium, due to
e nature of soils. Because of the subsidence of the land, the
area would become-a lake if waters breached the protective levees.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: The study unit is surrounded by a seven (7)
to nine (9) foot M levee and has been draimed by pumps. There
are approximately 2,400 acres of reclaimed land. Scully Canal
provided boat access to the unit at one time. The canal is now
too shallow for navigation. Anairstrip is located on the canal
at the study unit boundary. Elevations of minus five (-5) feet
are located within the study unit. The unit is divided into
plots of agricultural land by drainage ditches.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: Clovelly Farms is a flood.prone area. It is
surrounded by a levee system and will be protected by the new 13
foot hurricane protection levee.

IMPORTANT FARMLANDS: Sugarcane farmlands of Statewide Importance
are found at C13ve ly.

USE OF LAND: The land was developed for the purpose of sugarcane
Tarming and most is still used for this purpose. Some land is
pasture land, used for cattle grazing. Oil and-gas extraction is
not a prominent use in the study unit, but extraction takes place
on a larger scale in the land aurrounding the unit. The land is
privately owned.

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES: None.

101

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL: The study unit is privately owned and
probably would not be open to public recreation use.

HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES: Freshwater extends to a depth of three-
hundred (300) feet in the study unit.

HISTORIC/CULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL: None.

PROBLEMS NOTED:

1. Slow subsidence of land.coupled with the ra-oid initial
subsidence that accompanied reclamation has resulted in
extensive artificial drainage and flood.protection
measures. These include:

a. Pumps to get water out due to low elevation of the
interior

b. A levee of plu!@ seven (7) to nine (9) feet MSL to keep
water out

2. The area presents a flood hazard during major stor should
the levees-be breached

3.- Land has been permanently taken out of the wetlands eco-
svstem

GOAL

i. Maintain agricultural production in Clovelly Farms

POLICIES

POLICY 1. Maintain the reclaimed areas as a sugarcane plantation.

POLICY 2. Discourage any urban development, commercial, industrial,
or residential due to low elevation and poor foundation.conditions
unless flood protection is improved significantly.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coas*tal Zone Management Program shall
apply to this E.M.U.

102

CLOVELLY

LOCATION: The E.M.U. is bordered on the north by the Scully Canal
on the west by Clovelly Farms and the South Lafourche levee, on the
southwest bvIthe channel of Bayou L'Ours, on the west again by the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Canal, on.the south by unnamed pipeline canal,
on the east by a. series of oil field access canals to Little Lake,
then.along the Lafourche-Jefferson Parish border through Little Lake.

LAND COVER: To be determined, by Landsat analysis.

SOILS: Generally undrained, brackish marshland consisting of organic
layers of various thicknesses, underlain by soft dispersed saline
and mucky clays. When flooded, organic layers may separate and float.
Along Bayou L'Ours an extensive natural levee system his created a.
long narrow finger of Sharkey-Tunica Association soils. Soils are
dark gray.with a clay surface and poorly drained. These soils are
poor for use as building sites but firm enough to support bottom-
land hardwoods in the upper sections of the distributary and very
small swamp areas also at the upper end of the distributary channel.

VEGETATION: Vegetation is almost exclusively brackish water marsh.-
Along extensive spoil banks, spoil bank succession upland brushy
vegetation has developed. Along the upper portions of Bayou L@Ours,
a very thin Cypress-Tupelo Gum swamp and a thinner strip of bottom-
land hardwoods, mair.1y.oak still survive. Most'of'the-swamp has
been lost due to saltwater intrusion and natural levee subsidence.
The vegetation is changing rapidly*to marshland as- the trees die.
off due to the above mentioned problems.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTTAL IF DRAINED: Natural levee soils along Bayou
L'Ours would have a low subsidence potential if drained due to their
mineral nature. However, geologically, the natural levee ridge is
subsiding back into the marsh. The rest of the unit is brackish
marsh with a very high potential for subs,idence-.(5lI'+) if drained.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL:

A. Due to Channel Construction: High everywhere in the unit.
Land loss rates exceeding 400 acres per year occur in the
southern portion of the E.M.U.

B. Due to reclamation: N/A

C.- Due to saltwater intrusion: Marshlands are changing in
character toward saline. Primary destruction come's from
subsidence and channel construction.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: The area of the E.M.U. is almost exclusive
marshland at or near sea level. Elevations approaching +5 feet MSL

103

occur on spoil banks and along a thin strip of remnant natural
levee associated with Bayou L'Ours in the upper portion of the
distributary.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire area is flooded permanently. The
upper portion of low alluvial ridges offBayou L'Ours would only
flood during storm periods.

IMPORTANT FARMLANDS: None-.

USE OF LAND: Predominant use of land is for the extraction of oil
and gas il fields include the Clovelly Oil and Gas Fields in
several areas and portions of the Coffee Bay, Kings Ridge, and
East Golden Meadow Oil and Gas Field. Along the Clovelly Salt
Dome is the Louisiana Oil _Vort Storage and pump facility. The
L.O.O.P. pipeline also runs throughout this E.M.U. At the Clovelly
Salt Dome, crude oil is stored in underground caverns leached out
of the sal*t dome. Fresh water from the Breton Canal is injected
below the surface to leach out the brine. There is also a "Brine
Storage Reservoir" of 200 acres used to displace oil out of the
salt dome and in-to the--pipeline transportation networks. The
total operation at the salt dome occupies about 600 acres.

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES:

A. Geological: Clovelly salt dome. The top of this dome is
approxim ely 1,200 feet below the surface.

B@ Geomorphological: The Bayou L'Ours natural levee and
distribUtary provides a low ridge along the southwest
boundary of the E.M.U.

C. Botanical: None.
1. Wading Bird Rookery north of Bayou L'Ours 29 0 161N
900131W (approximate)

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL: Hunting and fishing. Long narrow alluvial
ridges provide Fo-Ttle-n-71-al access deep into wetland areas'.

HYDROLOGICAL RESOURCES: Base of ground water table varies from no
Treshwater to 30--f-eet. Even where freshwater is available, it
must be Piped at a #6ry low rate. Below and sometimes above, water
rapidly becomes brackish or saline.

HISTORIC/'CULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL:

A. Historic Sites: None.

.B. Cultural: None.

104

C Archeological:

LF 1 Known Shell Midden Test fork of Bayou L'Ours
LF 22 Known Shell Midden Little Lake and Scully Canal
LF 23 Known Shell Midden Shoreline of Little Lake
LF 24 Known Shell Midden Shoreline of Little Lake
LF 25 Known Shell Midden Shoreline of Little Lake
LF 26 Known Shell Midden Shoreline of Little Lake.
LF 27 Known Shell Midden Shoreline of Little Lake

PROBLEMS NOTED:

1. Rapid deterioration of marshland on both sides of Bayou L'Ours
southeast section of E.M.U.

2. Retreat of shoreline along Little Lake

3. Erosion of oil and gas access canals in oil fields

4. Potential water pollution and erosion caused by L.O.O.P.
facilities

5. Saltwater intrusion into the area

105

CLOVELLY

GOALS

1. Slow down rate of saltwater intrusion into E..!I.U.

2. Maintain the integrity of the relatively undisturbed brackish
marsh area in the north and northeast section of the E.H.U. by
imposing mitigation conditions on anv dredge and fill Dermits
issued in this area that retard marsh deterioration

3.. Reduce erosion of strip of land between Littie Lake and eroded
wetlands north of Bayou L'Ours

4. Reduce erosion of strip of natural levee of Bayou L'Ours run-
ning east - west between two rapidly eroding wetland areas

5. Maintain activities of L.O.O.P. and coordinate and support any
mitigation plans developed for the area under-their jurisdiction

106

CLOVELLY

This E.M.U..'is almost exclusively wetland, primarily brackish marsh.
The E.M.U. is varied in its marsh condition, erosion rates, and man-
made activity stresses. The Louisiana. Offshore Oil Port Clovelly
Dome Storage Terminal as well as the L.n.o.P. and L.O.C.A.P. lines
run through this E.M.U. These-areas are covered as a "special area"
with their own environmental management plan. The Bayou L'Ours
natural levee system forms a narrow barrier with firmer soils be-
tween two of the most rapidly-eroding areas in the Lafourche coastal
zone. The brackish marsh in the northern portion of the E.M.U. is in
relatively good condition. In order to specify policies that re-
flect-the different con ditions extant throughout this F.AV.U., the
followinp- areas have been sectioned off on the Habitat 4ap Overlay
for special policy statements:

1. The LOOP "Special A 'real' including the Clovelly Terminal
and pipeline designation: Area A

2. The southern subsided-Bayou L'Ours strip of natural levee
between the two bisecting canals: Area R

3. Marsh buffer between the large open water area north of
Bayou L'Ours. Little Lake on the north, bordered by the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Canal on the west and an oil and
gas access canal on the east: Area C

a. The rap"idly eroding and largely water areas north and south
of the subsided section of Bayou L'Ours (R). The northern
area. is bordered bv Area C to the north, oil and gas access
canals to the east the Tennessee Gas Pipeline:Canal to the
west. and the Bayou L'Ours na-tural-levee Area 8 to the
south: Area D

The southern area.is bounded on the north by Bayou L'Ours
(B), a series of oil and gas canals on the east, the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Canal to the west and the brackish
marsh zone on the E.M.U. border to the-south: Area E.

5. The,brackish marsh separatinz Bayou L.'Ours on Little Lake
from Brusle Lake and bounded on the east and w@st by, pipe-
line canals (Tennessee Gas Pipeline to the west, Breton
Canal to the east) i Area F

6. The-area north of a line running along the north bank of
the Breton Canal from Little Lake to the Clovelly Dome and
circumscribing the north boundary of the Clovelly Dome@and
them-northwest along Superior Pipeline Canal to Clovelly
F,,%rms then along the farm levee to the E.M.U.' border. On
the north, the E.M.U. boundary forms the boundary (Scully
Canal). Little Lake marks the eastern boundary: Area

7. The area from the channel of Bayou L'Ours (E.M.U. boundary)
to the end of the natural levee north to the Clovelly Dome
and south.to the north - south canal and the boundary of
Area B. This area circumscribes the remnant natural levee
forest and brushy vegetation where the ridge still extends
above the marshland forming a barrier: Area H

107

POLICIES FOR THE CLOVELLY E.M.U.

CLOVELLY E.M.U. GENERAL POLICIES

POLICY 1. All Gener'al Policies for the Lafourche Coastal. Zone shall
apply iF-this E.M.U. unless modified by specific E.M.U. or sub-E.M.U.
policies stated in this E.M.U. policy statement. t
r
POLICY 2. Where not specitied, spoil from new pipeline canals or oil
ind gas access canals should be spread out in ponding areas so as to
create new marsh sites as a part of mitigation conditions for permits.

POLICY 3. There shall be no illegal dumping in this.E.M.U. of any
liquid or solid waste. Existing tank-storage sites and*we--ll sites shalit
follow all applicable guidelines as specified by the Louisiana Depart -
ment of Natural Resources regUrding the storing and disposal of wastes
from mud pits, well pits, well construction, etc.
POLICY 4. Coordination mechanisms'shall be established between L :0:0
and the Parish CZM Program to monitor waste discharge from the facility.

POLICY 5. Contiguous E.M.U.'s to Clovelly that border on sub-area as
indicat in these policies shall be subject to those same policies t
and borders s hall be constructed with-in respective E.M.U.'s within
which those same policies should apply.

:POLICY 6. Permanent human h 'abitation dwellin gs; should be discouraged
t.Broughout this E.M.U. due to severe flooding potential-from storms I
and lack of adequate water and sewerage facilities. Any permits as-
sociated with recreational or any other type of permanent dwellings R,
shall require adequalCe on site sewerage and proof of compliance with
solid waste disposal and collection regulations of Lafourche Parish.

AREA A
POLICY 7. In Area A.(L.O.O.P., Special Area) coordination mechanisms t
sFould be set up by the parish and L.O.O.P. so as to make maximum use
of any mitigation or permitting measures attempted by either the parish
or L.O.O.P. in ornear the Special Area. t

POLICY 8. In Area A the maintenance of spoil around all existing pipe-
line and oil and gas a-@cess canals should be encouraged of L.O., O.P. to
retard erosion and saltwater into the relatively intact marshes north
and east of the pipeline corridor north of the Clovelly Dome facility.
t

108
t

AREA G
POLICY 9. . In Area G, all oil and gas access canals open to Little
Lake (running.basically east - west) should have continuous spoil
banks without openings placed and maintained by companies dredging
the canal and/or owning the wd1l.

POLICY 10. In Area. G all existing pipeline canals should have a
plug and e backfilled to marsh level as Der General Policy 2 of
th,e Lafourche Coastal Zone.

POLICY 11. In Area G, the Tennessee Gas and Texas Eastern Pipeline
canals bisecting the Clovelly E.H.U. and intersecting Little Lake
-chouldhave dams and backfill.ing placed across them near to where
they intersect Little Lake in the manner described in Policy 1
qeneral Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone. Spoil for this
Project should come from mitigation measures imposed on dredging
activities in or near the two channels and close to Little Lake.
Maintenance of the structures should be as stated in Lafourche
Coastal Zone General Policy 3.

POLICY 12. In Area G, all oil and gas access canals running north
South (or parallel to Little Lake) should place and maintain spoil
banks as maintenance dredging takes place as per General Policy 3
of the Lafaurche Coastal Zone.

POLICY 13. In Area G, the Superior Canal north from the Clovelly
Bome should have a dam placed across it to retard saltwater intru-
sion into the marsh north of the dome. Methods outlined in General
Policy 2 of the Lafourche-Coastal Zone can be used.to have this dam
constructed.

POLICY 14: At the point at which the extension of Bayou Francois
Lasseigne has been cut through the Bayou L'Ours Natural Levee (T18S,
R22E, Section 58), a dam placed across the channel to retard salt-
water intrusion has been broken. This.dam should be rebuilt and
spoil backfilled on either side as specified for pipeline'canals in
the General Policies to discourage such activities. Spoil may be
obtained as elsewhere in these policies from mitigation conditions
imposed on permits in the area.

AREA F

POL@Cy 15. In this area a thin strip of brackish marsh separates
Brusle Lake from Little Lake at Bayou L'Ours. To retard the ex-
pansion of Little Lake into Brusle Lake, north - south canals for
oil and gas extraction should be avoided wherever possible. If
canals must be built, then they should not cut completely through
the marshlands to either Brusle Lake or vi"ce versa to Little Lake.
Canals from either lake should have spoil banks continously placed
on both outside banks. Dams should also be placed and maintained
at canal mouths to retard erosion as described in E. M. TT.. Policy 4.

POLICY 16. Existing pipeline canals bisecting the marsh in Area F
should be dammed and backfilled on both ends as per the method des-
cribed in Lafourche Coastal Zone General Policy 2.

POLICY 17. Any dredging in both canals that form the boundary of
Area F (Breton Canal and Tennessee Gas) should place spoil on the
bank closest to this area. Dams and backfilling if possible should
also be construCtEd on each canal in the manner outlined in
Lafourche Coastal Zone General Policy 2.

AREA C

POLICY 18. Area C is much like Area F. A strip of brackish marsh
Tand separates the large open water area north of Bayou L'Ours from
Little Lake. Erosion of this area would cause the shoreline of
Little Lake to expand to Bayou L'Ours. In order to reduce erosion
potential, no oil and gas access canals should be dredged that
completely bisect the area. Spoil from canals dredged from either
side of this area should be Placed continuously on both sides of the
channel to retard erosion of this buffer strip.

POLICY 19. Existing pipeline canals through Area C should be dammed
and backfillOd using the same mitigation techniques as listed in
Lafourche Coastal Zone General Policy 2.

POLICY 20. Along the Tennessee Gas Canal that forms the border for
Areas F and C spoil should be placed on' the east bank of the'channel
when the channel is dredged. The canal should also be plugged at
Little Lake (Bayou L'Ours) and at the southwest border of Area C
as indicated on the habitat overlay as described in Lafourche
Coastal Zone General Policy 2.

AREAS D, E) B

POLICY Areas D and E are the most rapidly erodihg areas of the
Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone with rates exceeding 400 acres. The
marshlands in both areas have largely disintegrated and/or subsided
becoming mostly shallow open water north and south of Bayou L'Ours.
The subsided levee system of the bayou provided the only firm soils,
that could act as a barrier to protect what is left- of the marsh-
land from joining with Little Lake. 'If this barrier is destroyed,
waters of the Barataria Basin will impinge on Bayou Raphael or on
the man-made South Lafourche Levee System itself. Therefore, it is
recommended that no oil and gas access canals should be dredged
across this strip of subsided levee delineated as Area B. if it is
necessary to dredge a canal, it-should not cut all the way through
the levee, should be plugged at its mouth, and be backfilied with
silts and clays taken in the dredging of the levee.

.POLICY 22, Any dredging within a reasonable distance from the
Bayou L'Ours Natural levee strip (Area B) in the open water zones
of Area D and E should place spoil in any oil and gas backfilled
canals dug under Policy 19 or along the levee strip itself to the
maximum extent-practicable to help the strip maintain its integrity
as a buffer against erosion.

110

POLICY23. 'Any dredging of the oil and gas access canals marking
the southeast boundary of Area E should require that spoil be placed
on the west and northwest bank of the canal (i.e. the bank nearest
the open water area. of E to,retard the spread of the water area-to
the southeast).

POLICY 24, Any dredging in or near the canal on the eastern
boundary of Bayou L'Ours that breaches the natural levee system
(Area. B) should require backf illing of this area, as well as dams
on both sides of the levee ridge across the canal, as stated in
E.M.U. Policy 9. Material for the dams could be obtained from
maintenance dredging or from mitigation techniques imposed on othth-r
permits in the area as stated in E.M.U. Policy 9.

AREA H

POLICY 25. Area H is the upper portion of the west fork of Bayou
L'Ours. The natural levee is high enough'to act as a real barrier
to water as well as support a thin strip of bottomlan'd hardwood and
upland brushy vegetation. This remnant levee ridge, along with
Bayou Raphael to the west forms a.barrier that protects the new
South-La:fourche levee system from the erosion progressing'from
Little Lake. To protect this barrier, oil and gas canals should
not breach this ridge for any reason where tree vegetation exists.
Board roads should be used to access any well sites on or near the
levee system. Conditions for roads shall be as stated in General
Policy 7 for the Lafourche Coastal Zone.

POLICY 26. If pipeline canals must cross the Bayou L'Ours ridge,
the canal should be-backfilled with original materials dredged from
the levee. The backfilled area should match former elevations and
the area should be revegetated. A preferable pipeline laying would
involve burial,.not the dredging df a canal.
POL'ICY 27- The.Tennessee Gas Canal which forms the western bound-
ary of Area E and the eastern boundary of Area H should have spoil
placed on the east bank of the canal when dredging takes place in
the canal. The spoil should be in a continuous bank to serve as an
erosion barrier. Any other dredge and fill activities that break
the canal spoil bank should require that the bank be reconstituted
after the activities.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall
apply to this E.M.U.

Where E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state concern", the policies
are intended only as recommendations to the.state program managers
and are not legally binding on the permit applicant or the state
CZAI program.

Figure 4.6

M"Y CAMP F-h&U.

RACCOURCI

.... ... J GOLDEN MEADOW

CAMSH
MS"

LUAKE

impEuME CORMWR

SAyoU LAFOURCHE

@4%

LEEVILLE
LAKE RACCOURCI EMU

LrrTLE

U9
FOURCHON
cc
EAU

TIMBAUER BAY

'nMBALIER E IAU

00
do
Cos

RACCOURCI

BOUNDARY: This E.M.U. is bordered on the north by-the Bully Camp
E.M.U. and Grand Bayou (Bayou Pointe-a-u-Chien- E.M.U.), ori the west
by the T4rrebonne-Lafourche-narish boundary, and the natural levee
of Bayou Pointe-au-Chien (northern half of E.M.U.).* On the south,
the boundary is the Timbalier E.M.U. - a line running from Belle
Pass through TimbalierBay just -north of Casse-Tete' Island. west-
ward to the Terrebonne-Lafourche border. On the east, the E.M.U.
is bordered by Bayou Lafourche (Fourchon E.M.U.), a series of oil
and gas canals (Leeville E.M.U.) Bayou Lafourche-again to the
southern part of Golden Meadow, then a series of oil and gas canals
and the east boundary of Catfish Lake and another-oil and gas canal
until an intersection with the South Lafourche levee (Golden Meadow
E.M.U.) then north along the South Lafourche levee to the boundary
of the Bully Camp.E.M.U.

SOILS: Soils range from brackish to saltwater marsh types. Organic
layers of varying thicknesses are underlain by gray'silty clays or
saline and mucky clays. When flooded the organic layers separate
from the clays and float.

VEGETATION: Marsh vegetation ranges from brackish and saline marsh.
Vegetation types include wire-grass, three-cornered grass and salt-
-grass in the brackish areas; and oyster- grass, blackrush and salt-
grass in the saline areas. Scrub woody vegetation grows on some
canal spoil banks. Some natural levee vegetation still exists on
the'raised portions of the old Pointe-au-Chien natural levee in the-
northwest portion of this E.M.U. A few patches of Black Mangrove
grow on the islands in Timbalier Bay at the extreme southern portion
of this E.M.U.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL IF DRAINED: Ver7 high throughout the Management
Unit due to the high organic content and wetness of the soils. Sub-
sidence may exceed 51 inches in the brackish water zones.

-LAND LOSS POTENTIAL:

A. Due to Shoreline Retreat: The average.measured rate of
shoreline retreat is up to 1.00 feet per year along the Gulf
shoreline of Lafourche Parish.

B. Due to Channel Construction: High throughout the study unit.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: The E.M.U. is composed of low lying marsh
lands and shallow 1 es and bays open to the Gulf; including Bay
Courant, Deep Lake and Lake Raccourci. Bayous forming natural
drainage flows are numerous, as are pipeline, location and navi-
gation canals. In large Lake Raccourci, oil and gas wells are

113

numerous and there are numerous marsh islands Philo Brice Islands,
Northwest Island, and those in Jacio Camp Bay). Depths in Lake
Raccourci are generally 3 to 7 feet with shallower, sand bar or
tidal flat areas. The area is part o'. the Terrebonne Drainage Basin.
The study unit is cut by numerous canals, lakes and bayous; in-
cluding Grand Bayou, Grand Bayou Blue, Bayou Blue, Bayou Faleau,
Bayou Monnaie, Bayou Sevin, Cat'fish Lake, Bay Sevin, Laurier Bay,
Laurier Bayou, and Bayou Pierre et Lee. Numerous oil and gas field
location canals also cross the unit. Louisiana Highway 1 and spoil
deposits along location canals have elevations of 2 to 4 feet MSL.
Oil and gas wells are scattered throughout the unit, especially
around Catfish Lake (part of the Golden Meadow Oil and Gas Field).
Pointe-au-Chien Wildlife Management area extends into the extreme
northwestern portion of the unit.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire area is flood prone.

IMPORTANT FARMLANDS: None.

USE OF LAND: Large amounts of mineral extraction occur around Cat-
@ish Lake (the Golden Meadow Oil and Gas Field) and in the northern
portion the unit around Lake Bully Camp Oil and Gas Field as well as
in Lake Raccourci and Timbalier Bay. Mosx of the unit is semi-
natural and altered marshland. Camps are scattered throughout the
north a@nd central portions of the study unit. Recreation, hunting,
and fishing are other major uses. Trapping lands are found in the
northern portion of the study unit. One small Indian community,
Fala, survives on the northern shore of Catfish Lake.

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES:

A. Geolo&ical Features:- None

B. Botanical Features:

1. Black Mangrove Areas: found on Phil.p Brice Islands and
...Northeast Island in Eake Raccourcl, and on surrounding
islands

'.2. Woodlands and shrubs found on Felicity Island at the
end of Bayou Pointe- au-,Chien

C.-,Zoological Features:

1. Seabird colonies and wading bird rookeries

a. E a.
;t of Old Lady Lake - Latitude 290 14' Longitude
90 24
b.- Felicity Latitude 29 0 181 Longitude 90 0 17'
0 C? 171
C. NW of Pierle Bay Latitude 29 10' Longitude 90

114

d. West of Pierle Bay Latitude 29 0 10' Longitude
90 17,

2. Primary fish and shellfish nursery grounds: found
throughout the area; part of the Terrebonne Basin
(includes croaker, menhaden, brown and white shrimp,
blue crab, etc.)

3. Oyster lease grounds found above Lake Raccourci (private
leased oyster beds)

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL: Area is suitable for hunting, trapping, and
fishing with access from Golden Meadow, Leeville and numerous bayous

-HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES: The wa-ter,table is at the surface. There is
little or no potable fresh water, except for occasional lenses float-
ing upon saltwater.

HISTORIC/CULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL:

A. listoric Sites: None.

B. Cultural Sites:' One small-Indian community remains on the
northern sh.ore of Catfish Lake, a reminder of when such
villages were scattered throuFhout South Louisiana's marsh
and.swamplands. The settlement, known as Pala consists
of five families; all of which exist as fishers and trappers.

C. Archeological Sites:

.LF 41 Known Shell Hidden near Catfish Lake
LF 32. Prehistoric Indian Mound Pointe-au-Chien
LF 39 Known Shell Hidden Grand Bayou
LF 40 Known Shell Hidden Grand Bayou
LF 41 Known Shell Hidden Grand Bayou
LF 43 Known Shell Midden near Laurier Bav
LF 49 Known Shell Midd6n near Laurier Bay'
--- Known Shell Hidden Philo Brice Islands

115

GOALS

1 Reduce saltwater intrusion into the E.M.U.

2. Reduce erosion in Area R and C (as indicated on E.M.U. map)

3. Reduce erosion in Area D (as indicated on E.M.U. map)

4. Reduce expansion of canals west and southwest of Catfish Lake

116

RACCOURCI

This E.M.U. consists mainly of salt and brackish marshes and large
open bays in the southern portion of the area. The only high ground
are isolated remnants of the Pointe-au-Chien and South Lafourche
levee system and a few spoil banks. Erosion is a problem here al-
though the rates are significantly slower than for Clovelly and
South Barataria. The marshes are somewhat less cut up here than
in the Barataria. Basin E.M.U.'s east of Bayou Lafourche.

There are four areas within the E"M.U. where specialized policies
should be implemented. These are:

Area A - Oil and gas canal area west and southwest of Catfish
Lake including the lake.

Area B - Brackish marsh area in the northwest portion of the
unit experiencing significant ponding and saltwater intrusion

Area Brackish marsh area in the northeast.portion of the
E.M.U. experiencing the same stresses as Area B

Area D - Saltmarsh area on the east portion of Raccourci
northwest of the Leeville.E.M.U. experiencing ponding

GENERAL.RACCOTJRCI POLICIES

POLICY 1. All general policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone shall
apply in this E.M.U. unless modified by.specific E.M.U. or sub E.M.U.
policies stated in this E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. No canals should cut through the spoil banks associated
with the Columbia. Gas/United Gas Twin pipeline canals running east
west through the E.M.U. If a canal or pipeline must break the spoil
bank, dams should be constructed as per the general policies or the
spoil bank should be restored to its original conditions to help
retard saltwater intrusion inland.

POLICY 3. There shall be no illegal dumping in this E.M.U. of any
liquid or solid waste. Existing tank storage sites and well sites
shall follow all applicable guidelines as specified by the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources regarding the storing and disposal
of wastes from mud pits, well construction,. etc.

POLICY 4. Permanent human habitation dwellings should be disc3ur-
aged throughout this E.M.U. due to severe flooding potential from.
storms, and lack of adequate water and sewerage facilities. Anv
permits associated with recreational or any other type of permanent
dwellings shall require adequate on site sewerage and, proof of
compliance with-solid waste disposal and collection regulations of
Lafourche Parish.

117

POLICY 5. The spoil banks on both sides of the twin pipeline canals
(Policy 2) should be maintained as a barrier to saltwater intrusion.
Mitigation conditions for dredge and fill permits in the immediate
area may require that spoil be deposited along these banks so as to
maintain them as viable intrusion barriers.

SUB EMU POLICIES

AREA A

Arpa A is a transition zone between brackish and saline marshes.
It:is also traversed by the Grand Bayou-Bayou Scully-Bayou 8lue
drainage system - a major conduit of saline waters along with canals
into the Pointe-au-Chien and Bully Camp E.M.U. There are also num-
er.ous,oil and gas access canals in this area (Golden Meadow Oil
Field) as well as Catfish 'Jake. The area immediately to the east
(Golden Meadow E.M.U. ) has undergone significant deterioration due
....to oil and gas access canals.

POLICY 6. Existing channels should be used wherever possible to
access new oil and gas well sites. If a new channel is to be dug
it-sholild be incumbent upon the permit applicant to demonstrate that.
no feasible alt-ernative exists to carry out the activity.

POLICY 7. North - south canals connecting the many oil and gas
access canals should be. discouraged due to their exacerbation of
saltwater intrusion problems and erosion.

AREA B

Area B is an area of deteriorating brackish marsh similar to the
Clovelly E.M.U. Saltwater intrusion has caused extensive ponding
here as well as in the southern portions of the Pointe-au-Chien E.M.U.

POLICY 8. All canals dredged in this section of the Raccourci E.M.U.
should place spoil on the outside bank (the one opposite the ponding
areas) to help retard the spread of the water areas.

POLICY 9. Spoil banks along Bayou Bouillonshould be maintained as
per the method outlined in Policy 5 of this E.M.U.

POLICY.10. Consideration should be given to additional dams or
weirs along Bayou Salle and Bayou Bouillon to retard saltwa,'-.er
intrusion to the north. Financing for these projects could be
either through a parish mitigation fund and/or mitigation conditions
imposed on permits in the vicinity of these proposed projectE.

AREA C

Area C is must like Area B: the only-difference is that much more

118

extensive deterioration has occurred in.the marshes of Bullv Camp
E.M.U. to the north.

P-OLICY 11, All channels running north - south, especially the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline and Bayou Blue should have weirs or dams
Placed across them to slow down the rate of saltwater intrusion
into the brackish and freshwater areas to the north. The method
for constructing these facilities should.be as stated in Policy
10.

POLICY 12, The spoil banks along the Tennessee Gas Pipeline Canal
should be maintained as a deterrent to further enlargement of the
ponding area in this part of the E.H.U. Maintenance of the spoil
bank shouldbe accomplished as per Policy 5 of this E.M.U

POLICY 13. Any dredging of the channel that forms the southern
boundary of Area C should require that spoil be placed along the
northern bank to retard saltwater intrusion.

AREA D

Area D is a deteriorating saltmarsh area in the southeastern part
of the E.M.U. Some of this deterioration @tppea_rs to be natural
but activity in the area has exacerbated the erosion problem.

POLTCY 14- Whenever feasible, spoil obtained from maintenance
drpdging of existing canals should be snreaO so as to create new
"marsh sites in the general area of the dredged activity.

POLICY 15. Existing pipeline- corridors should be used, for any new
Pipeline construction unless it-can be demonstrated that it is ab-
solutely necessary that a new canal be dredged. If a new canal-is
dug, conditions stated elsewhere fo*r this E.M.U. should apply to
spoil deposition from canal construction.

POLICY 16. If new canals are to be dredged in-the wetland portion
of this E.M.U., it should be demonstrated that no alternative utili-
zing-existing waterways is possible and/or it is economically not
feasible to'use techniques such as directional drilling to avoid
unnecessary destruction of marshland.
POLICY 17. If new oil and gas access canals are dredged, spoil
should bg-deposited along their outer banks in relation to the
ponding areas to retard the expansion of the Ponds.

POLICY 18. No "through" canals should be dredged without dams
through this area north - south or east - west.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall
aPply-to this E.M.U.

Where E.M.U. policies refer to a. "use of state concern" 'the nolicies
are intended only as recommendations to the state program managers
and are not legally binding on the permit applicant or the state CZM
program.

119

GOLDEN MEADOW

LOCATION: The east ern boundary of this E.M.U. is the South
Lafourche Levee system. The southern, western, and northern
boundaries of the E.M.t. are a series of canals and the Raccourci
E.M.U. boundary.

SOILS: Generally brackish marsh soils having organic layers of
various thicknesses subject to very high subsidence and flooding.

VEGETATION: That typical of brackish marshes.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL IF DRAINED: Very High due to the nature of
the so11. Subsidence has also F)ccurred to a large extent as a
result of water and mineral extraction.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL DUE TO CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION: High. Intensive
channelitation Projects related to the oil and gas industries have
resulted in widening of canals over time. Erosion and land loss of
marsh land can be traced to current and wave wash created by boat
traffic and greater tidal influence. A study by N. J. Craig and
J. W. Day, Jr. (1977) showed total canal area for three years:

Year Total Acres

1940 58.2
1953 80-.6
1969 119.6

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: Original marsh lands altered by numerous
canals related to the Golden Meadow Oil and Gas Field. The area
has a levee four (4) feet in height separating it from the.Town of
Golden Meadow. Spoil banks are found along some canals. Trails
and shell roads two to four feet high lead to numerous oil and gas
wells. In general,. the land has an elevation less than one foot
MSL. At one time this land was higher, but it has subsided.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire area is flood prone.

IMPORTANT FARMLANDS: None.

USE OF LAND- The area is entirely devoted to resource extraction.

DATA ON GOLDEN MEADOW OIL FIELD: First oil well drilled 1938

Texaco Oil Company: Number of oil wells drilled 637

Oil Production Peaked 1967

120

Life of well - Liquids 9.6 years-

Gas 8.7 years

More drilling is anticipated in
the next few years

The extreme chanaelization of the marshlands and natural levee in
this unit, accompanied by saltwater intrusion, has led to the
development of a new estuarine system. The area is now a very
productive nursery for various aquatic species.

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES: None.

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL: Fishing, and other secondary contact
recreation is good. Some road access is located alonw oil and gas
company roads.. Boat launches are available in the Golden Meadow
area.

HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES: No potable water.- Water uses are limited to
fish and wildlife propagation. Saltwater intrusion into former
freshwater areas resulting from rapid exchange of water is an in-
creasing problem. The increased exchange is due to Aannelization.

FISTORIC/CULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL:

A. Historic Sites: the Golden Meadow bil aiid Gas'Field was
one of the first developed in this area in 1938. Oil
production in this field peaked in 1967.

S. Cultural: None.

C. Archeological Sites: None.

121

GOALS

1. Reduce erosion by protecting Catfish Lake from enlarvinq into'
Golden Meadow marshes

2. Protect new South Lafourche levee system by use of spoil to
reduce erosion and saltwater intrusion

3. Encourage the creation of new marsh with spoil dredged for
new canals

4. Encourage use of existing waterways to avoid cutting up the
area any further

122

POLICIES FOR GOLDEN MEADOW

The Golden Meadow E.M.U. is a severely deteriorated brackish
saline marsh now largely water due to the numerous oil and gas
access canals dug in the past in the area. The South Lafourche
Levee provides an eastern barrier to expansion o@f the 1vater area.
To the-west is Catfish Lake and Area "A" of Raccourci E.M.U.
Policies there are aimed at containing this eroded are :a.

POLICY 1. All General Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone
s
11 apply in this E.M.U. unless modified by specific E.M.U.
ha
or sub E.M.U. policies stated in this E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. All canals intersecting with the Plaisance Canal
should have plugs placed near their mouths as per the Lafourche
General Policies by imposing mitigation conditions on permits
near the area.

POLICY 3. All north - south- canals dredged in this E. M. IT. sh6uld
have spo-11 placed on the east bank so as to retard the spreading
eroding area of access canals.

POLICY 4. No connections between existing canals should be made
unless these connections are plugged at both ends after activities
are completed. These connections must also be justified as the
only economically feasible way of accomplishin@-, the requested per-
mit activity task.

POLICV 5. All canals except the Plaisance Canal should be sealed
off fr atfish Lake with dams as per the Lafourche General
Policies. These damsshould be constructed by imposing mitigation
conditions on permit applicants nearby to the dam sites.

POLICY 6. Permanent human habitation dwellings should be discour-
'aged throughout this E.M.U. due to severe flooding potential from
storms and lack of adequate water and sewerage facilities. Any
permits associated with recreational or any other type of per-
manent dwellings shall require adequate on site sewerage and proof
of compliance with solid waste disposal and collection regulations
of Lafourche Parish.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall
apply to this E.M.U.

Where E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state concern", the policies
are intended only as recommendations to the state program manage-rs
and are not legally binding on the permit applicant or the state CZM
program.

123

IG 4.7

ou ARATARIA

LOOP PMINE CORRIDOR),,

LY E M. U; CKBERRY

BAY

CAMNADA
BAY

F PVI LLE
IOURCHON 2 3 4KIUM
F-m.u
SCALE

SOUTH BARATARIA

LOCATION: The South Barataria E.M.U. is bordered on the east by the
Jefferson Parish boundary line running through Caminada Bay, Bay
Des Ilette, West Champagne Bay, Creole Bay, Hackberry Bay and Grand
Bayou. On the north the boundar7 runs through Little Lake and
follows the Jefferson Parish line. On the west, the Clovelly E.M.U.
forms*the western boundary south to the South Lafourche A Boundary
(levee) south to the Louisiana 1 Highway embankment and natural
levee (Raccourci E.M.U. boundary) to the Leeville E.M.U. to Louisiana
1 embankment (Fourchon E.M.U. boundary). The southern boundary
consists of the Louisiana 1 embankment and chenier (Caminada E.M.U.
boundary).

LAND COVER: To be determined by Parish Landsat analysis

SOILS: Along Bayou L'Ours east and west fork an extensive-natural
levee system has created long narrow fingers of Sharkey-Tunica
Association soils. Soils are dark gray with a clay surface and
poorly drained. Within this zone there are buried deposits of
Commerce silty soils. Although these soils are of the firmer min-
eral variety, the natural levee system has subsided to the point
where virtually all of this system is at or near sea level. A few
.solated areas have maintained remnant swamp forest until recently,
but these trees have been killed by saltwater intrusion.

The same condition exists albng-Bayou Lafourche south of the Lee-
ville E.M.U. The highest natural ground.exists on the southern E.M.U.
border where silts from a chenier ridge result in firmer soils with
some upland brush and a few trees. The only other high ground is
on extensive spoil banks. Soils occurring here are clays and erganics.

Throughout the rest of the E.M.U. soils are mainly organic layers
of Peat of various thicknesses underlain by soft dispersed saline
clays and mucky clays. The E.M.U. contains soils develooed under
both saline and brackish water conditions. When flooded, some or-
ganic layers separate from the clay substrate and float.

VEGETATION: Except for brushland, spoil bank succession vegetation
and a. few spots of trees along Highway 1 on the chenier ridge, the
area is exclusively brackish and saline marshland. Saltwater in-
trusion and subsidence has killed.the former swamp forest along
the old channel of Bayou L'Ours.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL: The natural levee of Bayou L'Ours is sub-
siding rapidly. There appears to be subsidence on bo-th sides of
the levee system. The rest of the E.M.U. (except the chenier area)
would subside greatly if drained. Rates exceeding 51" would occur
in the brackish marsh areas.

125

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL DUE TO CHANNEL CONSTRUCTION: High throughout
the E.M.U.

.TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: Chenier ridge along the southern-boundary
of the E.M.U. with elevations up to +5 MSL, buried natural levee
along Bayou L'Ours and Bayou Lafourche at or slightly above sea
level, and man-made spoil banks along'oil and gas access pipe-
line canals. Otherwise, the area is flooded marsh at or near sea
level.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire area is flood prone.

-IMPORTANT FARMLANDS: None

USE OF LAND: Other than the Highwa:y 1 transportation corridor,
the predominant use of land is for mineral extraction, hunting,
trapping, and fishing (commercial and recreational).

HISTORICAL/CULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL:

1. Historic Sites: None

2. Cultural Sites: None

3. Archeological Sites:

LF 11 Known Shell Midden on Bayou Renfleur
LF 12 Known Shell Midden on Bayou Renfleur

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES:

1. Private and public oyster seed grounds along Hackberry Bay
to Bay Tambour and Caminada Bay.

2.. Prime fish and shellfish nursery grounds adja:cent to oyster
leases (to the east).

3. Major wading bird rookery in Bayou Tambour.

4. Black Mangrove Area (Fringes on Bayou Tambour and Caminada
Bay)

-PROBLEMS NOTED:

1. Severe land loss greater than 400 acres per year near Bayou
L'Ours

2. Severe land loss east of Goldea Meadow

3. Erosion from the east via the bays of the Barataria Basin

126

GOAL9

1. Protect the oyster grounds in this E.M.U.

2. Encourage the retention of stable marsh areas under the
subsided natural levees as a bulwark -against erosion

3. Preserve the mangrove islands

4.* Preserve the barrier ridge by not dredging it for sand

S. Contain the highly eroded marshland in Area R (see map)

127

SOUTH.BARATARIA

South Barataria is almost exclusively a saltmarsh wetland area.
There is a chenier ridge on the southern boundary, a 7-ow alluvial
ridge along Bayou Lafourche and somq buried natural levee deposits
along Bayou L'Ours and Bayou Raphael. This area has already made
the transition to saltmarsh and generally is not eroding quite as
fast as the Clovelly area except in Area B northeast of the Lee-
ville E.M.U.

General Policies

POLICY 1. All General Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone
shall &Fply in this E.M.U. un-less modified by specific E.M.U. or
sub E.M.U. policies stated in this E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY.2. No canals should be cut through the relatively solid
marshlands from Caminada Bay to Area B to avoid exacerbating the
deteriorating conditions there. If new canals must be dug, they
should be backfilled and dammed at both ends, as per General Pol.icy 7
of the Lafourche Coastal Zone.

POLICY 3. -There shall be no illegal dumping in this E.M.U. of any
liquid or solid waste. Existing tank storage sites and well sites
shall follow all applicable guidelines as specified by the Louisiana
Depar@tment of Natural Resources regarding the storing and disposal
of wastes from mud pits, well construction, etc.

POLICY 4. Permanent human habitation dwellings should be discour-
aged tEFougbout this'E.M.U. due to severe flooding potential from
storms, and lack of adequate water and sewerage facilities. Any
permits associated with recreational or any other type of perma-
nent dwellings shall require adequate on site sewerage and proof
of compliance with solid waste disposal and collection regulations
of Lafourche Parish.

Besides the general policies, specific policies shall apply to the
*following areas delineated in the South Barataria E.M.U.

Area A - Bayou Lafourche Natural Levee
Area B - Highly eroded marshland northeast of Leeville E.M.U.
Area C - Brackish wat'er marsh in the northwest cornerof the
E.M.U.
Area D - Brackish water marsh in the northeast section of ".,he
E.M.U. fronti.ng on Little 'Lake
Area E - Lower subsided portion of the Bayou L'Ours Natural
Levee System
Area F - South Barataria portion of the Highway 1 chenier ridge
embankment bordering on the Caminada E.M.t.
Arei G - Mangrove islands fronting on Caminada Bay

128

AREA A

Area A includes the subsided natural. levee on the east side of Bayou
Lafotirche. Some patchy-strips of hardwoods still exist along the
higher portions of the ridge. Soils are silts and clays, firmer
and more resistent to erosion.

POLICY 5. If pipeline canals must cross the Bayou 4afourche ridge,
tFe canals should be backfilledwith original materials dredged
from the levee.. The backfilled are& should match former elevations
and.the area.*should be revegetated. A preferable pipeline laying
would involve burial, not the dredging of a. canal.

Pr)T.Tr-lr a- The Twin Canal (as indicated on the E.K.U. map) should
have a dam placed across it in the manner described in General
Policy 1 for the Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone where it intersects
with the Lafourche-natural levee.. The construction of this dam
should be accomplished by imposing mitigation conditions on other
permits in the general area. of the proposed dani.

AREA B

Area 3 is a continuation of the deteriorated marshland of the Lee-
ville K.M.U. The area is eroding rapidly and all additional
destruction of marshland should be avoided whenever possible here.

POLICY 7. Where not specified, spoil from new-pipeline canals or-
oil and gas. access canals should be spread out in ponding@ areas. so
as to@create- new marsh sites. as a. part of' mitigation conditions
for permits.

POLICY.8. rf new canals must be dredged in Area. B, it should be
deMonSt ed that no alternative exists utilizing existing water-
ways and/or it is economically not feasible to use techniques
such as directional drilling to avoid unnecessary destruction of
wetlands-here.

POLICY 9- Canals-along the perimeter of Area. B should place spoil
on the bank closest to Caminada. Bay in the east along the lake on
the north perimeter as indicated on the E.M.U. Overlay.

AREA C

Area C is a small strip of remaining brackish marsh in the north-
west portion of the R.M.U. This serves as a buffer between the
South Lafourche levee and rapidly changing area to the north and
saltmarsh to the south.

POLICY 10. Dams as described in General Policy 7 should be placed
on the Tennessee Gas Pipeline canal as indicated on the E..M.U. map
to retard saltwater intrusion into the Clovelly E.M.U.

129

t
POLICY 11. Dams as described in General Policy 7 should, be placed
on the east - west and north - south canals west and east of the
Tennessee Gas Pipeline Canal as indicated on the't.M.U. map. Dams t
such as this,shall be constructed from imposing mitigation condi-
tions on permits in the general area of th.e._propbsed dam site for
Policy 11 and 12.

POLICY 12. Spoil from any east - west trending canals in Area C
should place spoil in the south bank to retard saltwater, intrusion
into the area.

POLICY 13. No new canals should be dredged through this area
connecting the saltmarsh to the south with the lake area to the
north unless dams as specified in General Policy 7 are constructed
and maintained.

AREA D

Area D like Area C is the -remaining portion of brackish marsh ex-
.tant in this E.M.U. in the northeast portion of the unit.

POLICY-14. Spoil from any_north - south -trending canals dredged in
this E.M.U. should have spoil placed on-the east bank to retard
erosion and saltwater intrusion into the Clovelly E.M.U.

POLICY 15. No through canals should be dredged to Area D of Clovelly
7-c-om Littl-e Lake. If canals must be dredged. dams as stat ed in r
General Policy -7 should be placed and maintained on these canals at
both ends.

POLICY 16.. Dams should be placed at areas indicated on the E.M.U
.Map. Construction of these dams should be accomplished by imposing
mitigation conditions on permits in the general area of the dam
sites.
'AREA E t

This area is the submerged southern portion of the Bayou L'Ours
natural levee system. Marshland here should be more resistent to t
erosion than marsh developed on an organic base.
POLICY 17. No canals should be dug through this area, If canals t
must bisect the area, dams and backfilling with original materials
should be required to protect the value of this area as a buffer
to erosion.

AREA F
Highway 1 embankment and chenier ridge on the southern border of t
South Barataria E.M.U.
t

130

. . . ....... .

POLICY 18. Open pit mining for sand for various uses within this
E.K.U. currently occurs in the '.'swale" area between ridges near
Louisiana Highway 1. These mines should only be continued to meet
existingdemands. No new permits for commercial sand dredging-or
mining should be issued.anywhere in this E.M.U. on the north- side
of Louisianal.

POLICY 19, New-pipeline crossings of thechenier ridge and LA 1
embankment should be discouraged. If it can be demonstrated by" the
permit applicant that there is. no feasiblealternative to crossing
a chenier ridge, then the permit should- require that the ridge be.
graded up to its former elevation and.revegetated after the pipe-
line crossing iscompleted.

AREA G

Area G encompasses the mangrove fringe islands surrounding-Caminada,
Bay as indicatedon the E.M.U. map.

POLICY 20. Mangrove islands should not be destroyed for any reason.
If canals must be dredged through any island,. the-area. should be
returnect to grade and revegetated.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the. Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall
apply to this E.M.U.
where E.U.U. policies refer to a "use of state-concern", the policies..
are intended only- as recommendations to the state program managers"
and are-not legally binding on. the permit applicant or thestate
CZM program.

131

LEEVILLE
t
7
LOCATION: The E.M.U. encompasses the Leeville Oil Field and is
bounded on the north and the east by the South BaratariaE.M.U.
on the south by the South Barataria, Fourchon, and Raccourci E.M .U.,
and on the west by the Raccourci E.M.U. Bayou Lafourche bisects
this E.M.U.

SOILS: Most of the E.M.U. has soils similar to other southerly
units. Soils are highly organic with layers,of peat of varying
thicknesses underlain by soft, dispersed saline clays and mucky
clays. When flooded, some organic layers separate from the clay
substrate and float. Immediately along Bayou Lafourche, a rem-
nant low natural levee exists with somewhat better soils,
includine silts'@and'clays. In the southerly part of the study
unit. levee soils may be buried under irarsh deposits.

VEGETATION:- "Almost exclusively salt marsh. Areas of woody
vegetation occur along the'natural levee and along spoil banks
that parallel numerous canals ih the study unit.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL IF DRAINED: Very.High (51 inches plus) for
all of the area except a small itil-p-along Bayou Lafourche.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL DUE TO CHANNEL CONSTPUCTION: High. Soils.in
the area have properties which make them hig=y susceptible to
erosion due to channel construction.. Most channel construction in
F
the area has been due to mineral extraction. The area is now laced
with canals mainly associated with the Leeville Oil Field.

.DATA ON LEEVILLE OIL FIELD: First oil well drilled 1921

Number of oil wells drilled 442

Oil Production peaked 1967

Life of wel ls - Liquid's 16.9 years
Gas .8.7 years
More drilling anticipated in the t
next few years

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: Area is mainly salt marsh. The only relief
occurs as artificial embankments and fill near Highway 1, the low t
natural levee in the northern end of the study unit, and some spoil
banks along rig access canals in the Leeville Oil Field. Highest
marked elevation is plus six (6) feet MSL on a spoil bank in the
unit. The land in the rest of the study-unit is below plus five (5)
feet MSL and most is at or near sea-level.

.FLOODING POTENTIAL: Entire area is subject to flood tides from the
Gulf of Mexico during storms. Since there are no extensive levees,
the entire study unit is subject to wind and water damage.
132 t

IMPORTANT FARMLANDS: None.

USE OF LAND: Oil and gas extraction is the principle use of the area.
Wetlands have been severely altered due to dredgin@,.r for energy activi-
ties. Most structures along'Highway 1 are directly associated with
oil and gas activities. The Leeville areais a permanent resident
settlement. There are also s6me-hunting and tishing camps found in
the unit. Leeville provides an important staging areafor supplyof
necessary equipment to OCS activities. It also serves as an impor-_
tant evacuation,area. during hurricanes..

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES: None.

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL: Hunting and fishing occur ia area. High-
way I and canals provide access into marshlands-, and to the Gulf
for hunting and fishing. Crabbing and fishing are also popular
along the highway.

HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES: There is no readily available supply of fresh.
drinkingwater for Le4ville. Residents.-rely on pumpage.of water
into Bayou Lafourche from the Mississippi River.

HISTORIC/CULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGTCAL:

A. Historic Sites: Leeville is of historic interest. At one
time, in the early part of the century, the area was popu-
lated by people 'moving up from Grand Isle and Chenier
Caminada after disastrous hurricanes. Later storms drove
many of Leeville's settlers further up the coast to Golden
Meadow. A cemetery of historic interest is located at
Leeville. Other.old cemeteries along Bayou.Lafourche are
being-washed away.

B. Cultural: At one time, orange groves were found in the
area around Leeville along Bayou Lafourche. These,groves
disappeared as the soil.subsided.

C. Archeological Sites:

LF 50 Known Shell Midden on Bayou Lafourche
LF 52 Known Shell Midden on Bayou Lafourche

13.3

GOALS

Reduce erosion and new channelization in the entire E.M.U.

2. Rebuild marshland in the wetlands of the E.M.U. wherever
feasible by mitigation conditions applied to new Coastal
Use Permits issued in these areas

3. Use*spoil for maintenance dredging in rebuilding marshlands
of this E..M.U.

4. Discourage new dredging that destroys marshla-nd whenever
possible in this E.M.U.

5. Encourage continued industrial cohcentration.in the Leeville
areq

134

This E.M.U. is almost exclusively wetland, salt. marsh. The only
high ground is the strip al-ong.Louisiana- Highway I and fill areas
in and near Leeville. The entire E.H. *U. is severely cut up with
oil and gas canals and is eroding badly. The Hackberry Bay.Oil
Field covers the entire E.H.U.

POLICIES FOR LEEVILLE E.H.U.

POLICY 1. All General Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone
shall apply in this E.M.U. unless modified by specific E.M.U. or
sub-K.M.U. policies stated in this K.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. In the entire E.H.U. exclusive of the highstrip of
Louisiani Highway 1 and Leeville all permits for dredging and.
filling activities should require that dredged materials shall
be-spread so as to create new-marsh sites whenever possible .
instead of pla cin&r-spoil on-adjacent wetlands unless otherwise
stated. This means placing spoil in eroding-wetlands so as to
create new sites for marsh regeneration.
POLICY 3. Existing can-als should be used wherever possible to'
access new drilling in the oil fields occurring in this E,M.U.
New drilling* should be kept to an absolute minimum and subject
to conditions stated elsewhere in these policies.

'If new canals are to be-dredged.in.the wetland portion
POLICY 4:
of this E.M.U., it shouldbe demonstrated that no alternative utili-
zing existing waterways is possible and/or it is economically not
feasible to use techniques such as directional drilling to avoid
unnecessary destruction of marshland.

POLICY 5. Whenever feasible, spoil obtained from maintenance
dredging of existing canals should be spread. so as to create new
marsh sites in the general ares..of the dredging@activity.

POLICY 6. In some cases, where large amounts of dredging ere&+,.=
te
new changels, spreading and revegetation of new spoil areas may be
required of permit applicants after completi on of dredging projects.

POLICY 7. Permanent human residential habitation- should be discbur-
aged throughout this.E.M.U. due to problems of storm flooding, wind
damage, and lack of adequate public utilities. Recreational camps
are encouragedprovided provision is made for adequate disposal of
solid waste'and-sewerage effluent as per parish and state health
regulations.

POLICY S. Existing reclaimed sites along Bayou Lafourche should
continue to be utilized for industrial expansion. Concentration of
support activities is desirable due to the greater ease of providing
public services to an area such as Leeville. Industrial expansion
should only be undertaken if provision is made for adequate solid
waste, sewerage, and any industrial waste is provided for as per
parish and state regulation.

POLICY 9. Further reclamation for the purpose of industrial ex-'
pansion 9hould be discouraged if alternate sites are available
on already reclaimed areas. If reclamation is necessary, then
mitigation measures such as spoil spreading and marsh revegetation
should be undertaken by the permit applicant in other areas as
determined by the Permit Administrator and State CZM Program.

POLICY 10. As a possible mitigation measure for permit appli-
cants the dismantling and cleaning of Bayou Lafourche of pilings,
support platforms, sunken boats, etc. shall be considered so as
to maximize use of Bayou Lafourche as a valuable navigation
channel.

POLICY 11. There shall be no illegal dumping in this E.M.U. of
any liquid or solid waste. Existing tank storage sites and well
sites shall follow all applicable guidelines as specified.by the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources regarding the storing and
disposal of wastes from mud pits, well construction, etc.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall
apply to this E.M.U.

Where E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state concern", :the policies
are intended only as recommendations to the state program managers
and are not legally binding on the permit applicant or the state
CZM program.

136

Figued 4.8

FOURCHON

LF-tVILLE t.m.U.0
CAMIN
TIMBALIER

owy 3o%o

4b Joe

% so

flMSAUER OAY

FOU

w W
Z05
LOOP PI
OU

EAS' Of
.A.

Car.

0
Low =I Ml Ml m"' .1
p' - -. - - -I low

TIMBALIER

LOCATION: South western portion of*Lafourche Parish. The E.M.U.
is open water with the exception of the-.Casse-Tete,. the Calumet,
and East Timbalier Islands. The E.K.U. isbordered on the north
by the Raccourci E.M.U.., on the-east by Fourchon E.M.U., on the
south by the Gulf.of Mexico and.on the west by the Terrebonne
Parish line.

SOILS: Soils in the eastern part of the E.M.U. Casse-Tete, Bull,
Calumet Islands and Devils Islands are typical soils developed
under salt marsh similar to salt marsh areas of Bay Champagne
and Caminada. Exposed sand occur along the coastal Barrier Is-
land.Beach System. In. this E.M.U., these soils occur on East
Timbalier Island extending onto the barrier beach near Bay
Marchand.

VEGETATION: Primari ly salt marsh with its attendant salt. tolerant
vegetation. Some dunal vegetation is found on East Timbalier Is-
land.. Dunal vegetation includes baccharis, wax myrtle-and rattle
box. Calumet and Casse-Tete, Islands were at-one time almost coml-
pletely covered with mangroves. For the most part, black mangroves
have disappeared from the Barrier Islands. Pelicans are most
successful in roosting in. Black Mangroves..

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL IF DRAINED: All land areas in the E.M.U. ex-
cept East Timbalier Island have a high subsidence potential.
Ti'mbaliez- Island with mostly mineral soils and.'flir= substrate, has
little or no subsidence potential.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL:

A. Shoreline Retreat: Retreat in this E.M.U. is comparable to
the other E.M.U7r`s in the Late Lafourche Delta.. Grand Terre
has high erosion rates whichare comparable to East Timbalier.
Grand Terre between 1960-1972 has lost 18% of its acreage, or
118 acres/year.@

B. Land Loss Potential-Due to Channel Construction: High in the
study unit.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: Eagt.Timbalier Island (33.7 acres) has a. low
'Gulf side. Maximum elevations are at, or
barrier beach on the
slightly above, plus five (5) feet MSL. The rest of' the s-tudy- unit
is either marsh, mangrove or open water,.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire study unit is flood prone and part-
icularly susceptible to the actions of tidal storm surges-.

I
MPORTANTYARMLANDS: None.

138

-USE OF LAND: Most of the study unit is open water. There are
numerous oil well platforms and storage tanks on and nea.r East
Timbalier Island. Many pipelines lace the area.. There are no
roadways within the study unit. East Timbalier Island is a . I.
National Wildlife Refuge. The*area is suited for wildlife habi-
tat and recreation.

UNIQUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES:

A.. Geological Features:

1. Beach.Ridge: Barrier Island complex along the coast,
including the Timbalier Islands.

2. Deep Migratory Tidal Pass: Little Pass, Timbalier.
9-u-c-F-a pass is unique for their-depth (50 to 100 feet)
and volume of water movement. Ecologically, these
passes provide important migratory links connecting the
Gulf with estuaries. Nutrients, detritus, and sediment,
as well as fish and shellfish sDecies, migrate through
the pass.

B. Botanical Featur6s:

1. Submerged grass beds: Found on the Bay of East Tim-
balier 'Island and the northeastern shore of Timbalier
Bay. These beds of marine grasses are very important
to the ecology of the area. For the most part, the
beds have disappeared due to-dredging activities.

2. Black Mangrove Area: Calumet Island is an important
seabird nesting area and is essentially natural. The
island.has three distinct habitat zones: black mangrove,
sand beach and submergent grass beds.

C. Zoolozical Features:

1. Seabird/wadina bird rookeries:-.-
Devils Island Rookery Lat. 290 091 N, 900 161 W

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL:, Barrier Island beaches offer swimming and
sunbathing and other outdoor recreation, for the most part, by boat
only. East Timbalier Natural Wildlife Refuge occupies 337 acres on
and near the island.

HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES: The unit contains little or no freshwater
except for occasional lenses floating on salt water.

HISTORIC/CULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL:

A. Historic Sites: East Timbalier Island is a National Wild-
life Refuge; part of the Timbalier Barrier Island Chain.

B. Cultural: None.

C. Archeological Sites: None.

139

GOALS FOR TIMBALIER.

1. Reduce or eliminate erosion of East Timbalier Island

2. Promote beach restoration and/or other- means of.Barrier
Island rejuvenation

3. Protect important bird rookeries of Casse-Tete and Calumet
Islands

140

POLICIES FOR TIMBALIER

This E.M.U. contains some of the most fragile and important areas
in the coastal zone. East Timbalier Island is part of the Barrier
Island Complex that forms much of the coastal front in southeast
Louisiana. The island functions as a storm buffer and habitat
for birds. Calumet and Casse@-Tete Island have large strands of
mangrove utilized for bird rookeries.

POLICY 1. All General Policies for the Lafourche Coastal. Zone shall.
apply in this E.M.U. unless modified by specific E.M.U. or sub
E.M.U. policies stated in this E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. No channels shall be cut through any islands in this
R.M.U. For any purpose.

POLICY 3. Linear features involving dredging shall not traverse or
adversely affect East Timbalier Island.

POLICY 4. Experimental beach nourishment, dune building, and re-
Vegetation projects as miTigation for any CZM permits issued in
this area shall be encouraged.

POLICY 5. The rapid execution of the sand nourishment beach
stabilization projects contemplated.under the State Barrier Island
Protection Program should be accomplished as sbon as possible.
POLICY 6. No future permanent habitation for residential., commer-
cial or industrial purposes should be allowed on East Timbalier,
Casse-Tete, or Calumet Islands. Existing facilities should be
allowed to remain until: their activities have terminated. Temporary
marine research facilities should be allowed as long as no permanent
structures are built. Gulf Oil Company currently operates a major
base on East Timbalier Island and should be allowed to remain at
that location. Any expansion of that facility should not be detri-
mental to the island and should be approved by the CZM'program.

POLICY 7. Any Barrier Island protection, enhancement, or stabi-
fization project should have complete feasibility studies completed
before undertaking such projects. In addition, Droject monitoring
should be accomplished both by the project initiator and an inde-
pendent monitor kn,iwledgeable in marine biology,* and/or coastal
processes. The effects of the project after completion should also
be monitored by the Coastal Management Section of the Department
of Natural Resource.-. to assess viability of various alternative
strategies for protecting the barrier islands.

141

wi POLICY 8. Groins, jetties, and seawalls should be discouraged
on East Timbalier unless it can be reasonably demonstrated that
the construction of such sti@uctures will probably not adversely
affect coastal deposition processes "down current" from these
devices. Currently, Gulf Oil Company maintains such barriers
on East Timbalier to stabilize the-erosion of the island.' This
attempt at erosion control should-be encouraged to continue-as
long as it does not adversely affect the island.

POLICY 9. East Timbalier, Casse-Tete, and Calumet Island should
be declared a state special.area, or part of a. larger state special.
area encompassing the entire Barrier-Island chain.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program -
sha.11 apply to this E.M.U.

Where E.M.U. policies refer to a. "use of state concern", the poli-
cies are intended only as recommendations to the state program
maxagers and axe not legally binding on the permit applicant or-
the state CZM program.

142

FOURCHON

LOCATION: This unit is bordered on the east by Louisiana Highway
1 and Louisiana Highway 3090, on the south by the Gulf of Mexico t
and on the west by Bayou Lafourche and Belle Pass.
SOILS: Mainly organic layers of peat of various thicknesses F
underlain by soft dispersed saline clays and mucky clays. When
flooded, some organic layers se@parate from clay substrate and
float. Exposed silts and sands on Barrier Beach ridges and im-
mediately along Bayou Lafourche.

VEGETATION: Almost'exclusively salt marsh. Some woody vegetation
in upper section on low alluvial ridges along Bayou Lafourche and
artificial spoil banks. Small patches of Black Mangrove immediate-
1Y behind beach ridges immediately along the Gulf. Extensive
reclamation of the area immediately adjacent to Pass Fourchon near
the junction of Bayou Lafourebe, immediately behind the beach ridge
(Chevron, Gulf, and Tenneco Oil Companies) and elsewhere near the
coast has resulted in much spoil bank succession vegetation.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL:

A. Shoreline Retreat: Measured rate of shoreline retreat
(average) is 62.5-feet per year along the gulf shoreline
of Lafourche Parish.

B. Land Loss Due to Channel Construction: High., because of
the nature of soils in the are a.

-TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: Low naturad levee along Bayou Lafourche
gradually disappearing into the marsh. Louisiana'7ighway 1 and
Louisiana Highway 3090 are built on an artificial embankment alon
the eastern edge of the study unit. Along the coast, a low beach
ridge separates the Gulf of Mexico from the protected marshlands
to the rear. There is also a reclamation project associated with
Port Fourchon of about 3,600 acres immediately behind the beach ridge
complex along the shore. Activities in the area include light in-
dustry and recreation. This area, artificially built up, appears tn
be the only land above five (5) feet MSL. Most of the land lies
below plus two (2) feet MSL. The Nicholls State University Marire
Biology Laboratory is located at Fourchon. Chevron Oil Company also
has oil storage tanks in this study unit.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire area is flood Drone. For example
the Hurricane oF-1965 (Betsy), which was a U.S.-Army Corps of Enzineers
Project Storm produced a storm tide of 8.8 feet at Grand Isle (the r6a
nearest accurate tide record).-* However, this storm generated tides
up to plus twelve (12) feet MSL further east of this area.

143

USE OF LAND: The northern portion of this unit is in. a-semi-
altered natural state. The area around Port Fourchon and marsh
of Fourohon Island is drained and filled for industrial or marine
support facilities. Many pipelines cross the area transporting
petroleum products. Louisiana ITighw&Y 1 and Louisiana !TiahwaY
3090 are the only major roadways and evacuation-routes in the
area. Bayou Lafourche is the principlP, waterway of commerce for
shipping. Wisner Wildlife Management Area covers portions of
the-southern part of the study unit surrounding Port Fourchon.
Currently attempts are underway to develop Fourchon I'sland further
and also to stabilize the retreating coastline.

/_ A study entitled "Development Potential Study Fourch-on Is-
land" by Burk and Associates and UNO Cente-r for Economic Development
has detailed parameter for the Fourchon Island section of th-is
E.m.u7

UNIOUE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES:

A. Geological Features:

1. Beach ridge along coast

2. Deep migratory tidal passes (Belle Pass)

B. Botanical Features:

1. Black Mangrove Area

C. Zoological Features:
1. Seabird/Wading Bird Rooksries:
Bay Marchand Latitude, 29 07' Longitude 90 0 13,

RECREATIONAL POTENTIAL: The'Fourchon area offers potential camping,
picnicking, swim-m-rn-Tand has the only sand beach in Lafourche Parish
in the Gulf. Hunting, crabbing and fishing are popular along the
Fourchon Road.

HISTOR-ICZCULTURAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL:

A. Historic-Sites: None

B. Cultural Sites: None

C. Archeological Sites-

7Known Shell.Midden Pass Fourchon
LF 8Known Shell Midden Bay Marchand
LF 34 Known Shell Midden on Bayou Lafourche
LF 82 Known Shell Midden near Belle Pass
LY 84 Known Shell Midden near Belle Pass
LF 85 Known Shell Midden near Belle Pass
LF 86 Known Shell Middea near Belle Pass

144

PROBLEMS NOTED:

1. Shoreline retreat and loss of barrier beaches

2. Erosion of marshland due to channelization

3. Flood hazards to Port Fourchon area

4. Problems of secondary development in high hazard areas of
marshland behind Fourchon

5. Possibility of industrial waste pollution from.the Port
Fourchon development and pumping of bilge tanks by ships

6. Damage to estuarine value of niarsh due to channelization
and pollution

7. Increasing comDetition for the same resources (commercial
fisheries vs. sports fisheries) and for different.resources
in the same area (oil and gas vs. fisheries)

8. Subsidence problems if land is, drained

145

lei

GOALS

1. Promote continued development'of Port Fourchon,

2. Provide sufficient levels of services to Port Fourchon so as
to eliminate or minimize any environmental degradation caused
by the facility

3. Protect and maintain the remainder of the F.M.U. in its
present state by discouraging@ development involving-reclama-
tion in areas other than Port Fourchon

4. Reduce shoreliae-@erosion rate

5. Promote recreational access to beach and the r-ulf of Alexico,

146

POLICIES FOR PORT FOURCHON

This E.M.U., like Caminada, contains a barrier beach. Immediately
behind this beach are stands of Black Mangrove. On and near
Fourchon Island lies Port Fourchon, an oil and gas industry ser-
vice port as well as other oil related industries. The northern
part of the unit is primarily saltmarsh with numerous lakes.
Concentrated development like the Port are beneficial to coastal
zone management in thatthey minimize areal damage to the environ-
ment and they facilitate the provision of water, sewer, and solid
waste collection to one concentrated area, thus cutting down
pollution. The Port area-is already reclaimed, so-it is anti'ci-
pated that little additional destruction of wetland environment
will occur. Some erosion prevention has been attempted with the
construction of the Fourchon Jetty at the mouth of Bayou Lafourche
(Belle Pass). Several proposals have been outlined for develop-
ment and erosion protection in this area (Burk and Associates,
(1980): Development Potential Study, Fourchon Island).

POLICY 1. All General Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone
shall a5ply in this E.M.U. unless modified by specific E.M.U. or
sub E.M.U. policies stated in this E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. Continue the orderly development.of Port Fourchon with-
in the unds of the project description as outlined in the Port
Fourchon Development Plan.

POLICY 3. Maintain and improve Higbway 3090 all the way to the
beach to facilitate recreational,access to 'che beach and Gulf of
Mexico.

POLICY 4. Promote a cooperative effort of Port Fourchon, the Parish
of Lafourche. and local industries:to clean up the Fourchon Beach of
trash and other debris.

POLICY 5. Channels should not be cut through the Barrier Beach.
If it is -deemed necessary to breach the barrier beach with a channel,
the channel shall be sealed after activity completion and the beach
restored to its original elevation and contour and revegetated to
its original conditions as much as possible.

POLICY 6. Pipelines cut through the barrier beach are not generally
acceptable. If it is deemed necessary to breach the barrier island
with a pipeline, the pipeline should be covered after activity com-
pletion and the beach restored to its original elevation and contour
and revegetated to its original conditions as much as possible.

POLICY 7. Channels dredged for any purpose should be plugged after
activities have ceased and spoil spread-so as to mitigate the marsh
destruction caused bv the channels, as per the Lafourche Coastal
Zone General Policy 2 and maintained as per General Policy 3. Re"t
vegetation of spoil may be required in individual circumstances.

147

POLICY -8. Spoil of a silty or sandy nature may, depending on indi-
vidual circumstances be required to be hauled to the barrier beach
for deposition there as part of mitigation procedures associated
with channel constructionin this E.M.U.-

POLICY 9. Black Mangrove areas should be protected from destruction
from-any permitted activity. These plants helD stabilize the areas
immediately behind.the coastal beach ridge and are important in
the retardation of erosion. No pipelines or channels should traverse
these areas unless the disturbed zone is refilled and revegetated
after completion of the permitted activity.

POLICY 10. Existing channels and lakes should be used to access any
g
oil and gas exploration sites as much as possible to avoid unnec-
essary channelization through marshlands.

POLICY 11'. Recreational facilities should be developed along the
Fourchon Beach to manage its recreational potential. This includes
the installing of shelters, tables, trash receptacles as:well as
regular trash pick-ups 'and sanitary, facilities.

POLICY 12. Permanent- human habitation or recreational dwellings
should be discouraged on Fourchon Island or anywhere near the
beach. The area. is eroding and is quite fragile. There is a lack
of water, solid waste, and sewerage facilities and the area is sub-
ject to severd wind and'storm surge potential in the event of
tropical storms or-hurricanes.

POLICY 13. Recreational dwellings and facilities along. Louislaarl-V
Highway 1 and Louisiana-Fijzhway 3090 are acceptable. as lonm as a."
method-for sewerage treatment and solid waste disposal is available.

.POLICY 14. 0pen pit mining for sand should not be permitted near
the barrier beach due to the value this area has as a-buffer against
storms.

Besides these guidelines, all coastal use,guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Pro".am shall
apply to this E.M.U.

,Vhere E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state concern", the policies
a
re intended only as recommendations to the state progr= managers
and are not legally bindingon the permit applicant or the state
CZX program.

148

.CAMIYADA

1way
LOCATION: Boundaries of this unit include Louisiana Hig):
on the north, the Jefferson Parish line to the east, Highway
3090 and Pass Fourchon to the west, and the Gulf of Mexico to
the south.

SOILS: Mainly organic layers of peat of varying thicknesses
Underlain by soft dispersed saline clays and mucky clays., When'
flooded, some organic layers separate from the clay substrate
and float. Some silts and sands are found on old beach ridges that
parallel the coast from the current shore ridge to the boundary
of the management unit.

VEGETATION,: Salt marsh covers most the area. Along the fossil
beach ridges,,woody bottomland hardwood vegetation'occurs in-
cluding live oaks. Immediately behind the coastline small patches
of black mangrove occur.' Some dunal vegetation exists on the
current beach-ridge along the Gulf.

SUBSIDENCE POTENTIAL IF DRAINED: High in the sout.@iern half of the
study unit area. Very High in Ehe northern half of the area. The
exceptions to this are the fossil beach-ridges which have little
or no subsidence.

LAND LOSS POTENTIAL IF DRAINED:,

A. -Shoreline Retreat: The average shoreline retreat alone the
Eafourche Parish Gulf Coast is about 62.0 feet per year.
The loss of land along the coast of Louisiana may be tied
to two factors -'first, the Mississippi River is not build-
ing any hew land to reiplace that lost through wave action
and storm erosion. Secondly, the entire Gulf Coast is
geologically subsiding. Dredging activities hasten both
of these two factors.

B. Land Loss Due to Channel Construction: High, due to the
nature of the soils in the area.

TOPOGRAPHIC FEATURES: The area is mainly salt marsh,with lonp.
narrow lakes trending northeast - southwest. 'Retween these lakes
lie the relict'bea*ch ridges, many of which uave trees on them.
Elevations on these ridges approach plus five (5) feet MSL. Other
than these ridges the only high ground exist3 as the embankment
for Highway I on the north border of this study unit and a few -low
spoil bank areas along canals.

FLOODING POTENTIAL: The entire area is flood prone.

-IMPORTANT FARMLANDS: None

149

USE OF LAND*: The area has been somewhat altered by the construction
of Louisiana I and at least two pipelin& canals. Sand is excavated
along the ridges and from pits in.swale areas for-use in highway
construction. Excavatiom pits have-been developed for-fishing.
Louisiana Highway 1, which crosses the unit provides the on17 road
link to Grand Isle for transportation and evacuation. Some fishing@
camps are found along the chenier near Grand Chenier. A U.S.
weather station is also located in the study unit.
UNiQUE-ECOLOGICAL FEATURES:

A. Geologic Features:

1. Coastal beach ridges

2. Chenier Caminada. Beach Ridges. This is a series of
ridges running parallel to the coast aad.vegetated by
oaks and other smaller shrubs, representing ancient
coastlines of the Gulf. These are unique geological
features.'that act as storm buffers and restinir areas
for migratory birds. Recommended by Rurk and Associates
(1977a) as a "Potential Preservation and Restoration
Area".

B. Botanical Features:

1. Black mangrove area.

C. loological Features: The area serves as an important rest-
ing spot for birds migrating across the Gulf of Vexico.

RECREATIONAL POTENTTAL: Wisner Wildlife Management Area covers part
of the western end of ihe study unit. Hunting and fishincoccur off
of Louisiana. I or in adjacent-marshes, Boat ramps provide access to
both marshes and the Crulf. The.Elmer's Island road is the only road
access to the Gulf. The road and island are private property re-
quiring tolls for entrance.

HYDROLOGIC RESOURCES: Little or no freshwater,.save occasional
lenses of freshwate r floating on saltwater.

HISTORId/CULTTJRAL/ARCHEOLOGICAL:

A_ Historic Sites. Caminada Chenier

B. Cultural Sites: None

C. Archeological Sites:

LF 10 Known Shell Midden Caminada Chenier
Shell Midden on Bayou Moreau

150

GOALS

1. Reduce shoreline erosion rate

2. Protect chenier ridges from degradation.by:

A. Channelization through ridges

.3. Mining of sand

C. Clearing of forest

3. Preserve the integrity of the swale areas between ridges from
further channelization

4. Control all development in E.M.U. due -to fragility of environ-
ment and flood danger from storms

5. Promote recreational access to swale lakes along Louisiana
Highway 1

151

POLICIES FOR CAMINADA

This E.M.U. contains a unique series of re-lict of beach ridges.
that roughly parallels the coast. Extensive deposits of sand
on the ridges as well as between them provide source materials
for the existing beach and the nearby barrier island complexes
as the shoreline-erodes inland. The high chenier.ridges support
some forest and provide habitat for many species of animals,
especially birds migrating across the Gulf of Mexico. The@ridges
themselves serve as-barriers to storms, waves, and tidal surges.
This area is unique and valuable to the Parish as a buffer against
erosion. It is under consideration as a possible "particular area"
in the lo'ca.1 CZM Plan.

POLICY 1. All General Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone shall
apply in this E'.M.U. unless modified hy specific E.M.U. or sub
E.M.U. policies stated in this-E.M.U. policy statement.

POLICY 2. Open pit mining for sand for various-uses within this
E.M.U. currently occurs in the "swale" area between ridges near,
Louisiana Highway 1. These mines should only be continued to meet
existing demands. No new permits for commercial sand dredging or
mining should be issued anywhere in this E.M.U.

POLICY 3. Chenier-ridges-will not be-leveled or mined for any pur-
Pose-whatsoever.

POLICY' 4. The forested-ridges shall not be disturbed to the maximum
extent practicable. If this vegetation is destroyed for any- nee-
essary permitted activity, it shall be replaced.

POLICY 5. New-pipeline crossings o.f chenier ridges should be dis-
E couraged. If it can-be demonstrated by the.Dermit applicant that
there is no feasible alternative to crossing a chenier ridee, then
the permit should require that the ridge be graded up to its former
elevation and revegetated after the pipeline crossing is completed.
yj POLICY 6.. Permanent human habitation dwellings should be discouraged
throughout this E.M.U. due to severe flooding potential from storms,
and lack of adequate water and sewerage facilities- Any permits
associated with recreational or any other type of permanent dwellings
shall.requ'ire-adequat.e on site sewerage and proof of compliance with
solid waste disDosal and collection regulations of- Lafourche Parish.

POLICY 7. There shall be no illegal dumping in this E.M.U. Existing
dumps M-11 be closed or phased out as approved landfills become
available in other areas.

POLICY S. Recreational boat launches and public facilities should be
.UW develo-p-eU along Louisiana Highway l.to provide recreational access
to swale lakes and sand borrow lakes in the area.

152

POLTrY 9- The construction of board roads, aggregate or hard
surface roads connecting Highway 1 with the cheniers shall be
discouraged. If-built, however, they shall meet General Policy
Guidelines established for the Lafourche Coastal Zone.
t
POLICY 10. No channels should be cut through cheniers for any FT
purpose.

POLICY 11. Channels dredged for any purpose should be plugged
after activities have ceasedas per the General Policies of the;
Lafourche Coastal Zone and spoil spread so as to mitigate the
marsh destruction caused by the channels. Revegetation of spoil
may be required subject to individual circumstances.

POLICY 12. Channels through the barrier beach into the swale
wetlands shall be discouraged. If it is deemed necessary to
breach the barrier beach with a channel, the chvnnel shall be
sealed after activity completion and the beach restored and re- t
vegetated to its original @ondition as much as Dossible.
POLICY 13. Existing@ channels and lakes should be used to access t
oil and gas exploration sites as much as possible to avoid cutting
any channels through the barrier beach.

POLICY 14. Black mangrove areas should be protected from des-
truction 'from any permitted activities. These plants help stabilize
the areas immediately behind the coastal beach ridge and are
important in the retardation of erosion. No pipelines or channels
should. traverse these areas, unless the area is refilled and vegeta-
tion is restored after the activity i's completed..
Besides these guidelines, all co@stal use guidelines as stated in
the F.E.I.S. of the Louisiana Coastal Zone Management Program shall
apply to this E.M.U.

Where E.M.U. policies refer to a "use of state concern", the policies
are intefided only as recommendations to the state program managers
and are not legally binding on the permit applicant or the state
CZM program.

153

RESOURCES, RESOURCE USERS, AND CONFLICTS

Introduction

The preceding Environmental Management Unit descriptions

and policy statements hive described many problem areas in

various parts of the Coastal Zone of Lafourche Parish. The

E.M.U. problem areas and conflicts as described were site

specific. The following is a summar7 description of the

major Coastal Zone resource uses, who uses them, the location

of-these uses, and conflicts'with the environment or other

users. A few of the resource conflicts.described here are
outside the scope- of CZM' in Lafourche Parish but most of these.

conflicts can and will be addressed by this management pro-

gram. (For- "site-specific" problear areas, please refer to

individual E.M.U. descriptions and policy statements).

Resource: Dry Land

Resource Use. Land for human habitation

Resource User: Residents of the Coastal Zone of Lafourche
Parish

Location: Larose to Golden Meadow

identified
Conflict,:. None

Approximately 27,000 people live and work in the. coastal
zone of Lafourche Parish. Almost all of the residents live on
land along the low alluvial ridges associated with navou.
Lafourche and its distributaries , or on land which has been
reclaimed, drained, and pumped out artificially. Levees have
long protected large tracts of land in the coastal zone. With.
the completion of the new South Lafourche Levee System (See
Volume I, Page 1.13) with its attendant higher protection levees

154

and lock and pumping system, the people who live in the coastal
zone will be afforded excellent Protection against flooding.

Although much of the land within the new levee system was
formerly wetland, it was reclaimed long ago. There is signifi-
cant open space left for any future development that may occur
here. Due to the high cost of reclamation, flooding hazards,
restrictions of flood insurance and a stable coastal zone
population, it is highly unlikely that any additional pressure
would be Placed on wetlands for reclamation PurDoses.

Resource: Dry Land

Resource Use: Reclamation for development

1. Port Fourchon industrial port development

2. Wisner Foundation - residential and industrial
development oT-Fourchon Island
Resource User: Port'-Fourchon, Wisner Foundation

Location: mouth of Bayou Lafourche, barrier beaches and
salt marsh of Fourchon Island

Identified
Conflict: None for Port Fourchon, possible future con-
flict about Fourchon Island; alteration of
fragile barrier beach/mangrove area
F
Port Fourchon (as described in Volume I, Page 111) is
located in the highly unstable coastal area near the mouth of
Bayou Lafourche. The port has already reclaimed all the land
it needs and has taken care of sewerage, water, other utilities.
This project..already has received needed permits to operate and
has plenty of vacant land available for future development with-
out the need to reclaim any wetlands. Centralizing of facilities
actually preserves wetlands by allowing the provision of water,
utilities, and sewerage to a central location.

Fourchon Island is a proposed multi-use concept for the
island formed by Belle Pass, Pass Fourchon, and the Gulf of
Mexico at the mouth,of Bayou Lafourche. This area contains the t
rapidly eroding barrier beach, mangrove-areas and salt marsh.
This is a fragile area that should not be open-to further devel-
opment due to its importance as a barrier to erosion (See t
Fourchon and Caminada E.M.U. descriptions and policies).
ill Ir
It is unlikely that any further extensive development w
occur on the island due to rapid erosion, environmental re-
straints (including CZM) and high development and maintenance
costs. This area should be maintained to insure that it remains

155

largely as it is now so as not to exacerbate the severe problems
extant in the area any'further.

'Figures 4.9 and 4.10 illilstrate existing., ].and cover and
projected erosion rates for the Fourchon Tsland Area.

(Note: A complete description of'proposals for this area is
available in-the report titled: Development Potential
Study Fourchon Island (1980) by Burk and Associates)

Resource-: Land (Barrier cheniers)-

Resource Use: Fill for lots, land, road construction

Resource User: Sandfill operators

Location: Fossil barrier beach ridges south of US 1 from.
Highway 3199 to Grand rsie

Identified
Conflict: Destruction of barrier beach ridges or erosion
caused by lakes in between ridges weakening the
barrier to erosion. Removal of sand from these'
ridges ultimately diminishes the sand supply
available for the barrier beach and the barrier
islands-as natural erosion pushes back the shore-
line.

In policy statements for Caminada and Fourchon, this
activity is discouraged due to the longterm adverse effects
to the fragile ecosystems of the chenier ridges, and the ultimate
loss of land and sand vital to showing erosion and maintaining
sand transfer to barrier islands.

(A full discussion of one such sand dredging operation is avail-
able in the F.r.r.s. titled "Sand Dredging Operationslin
Lafourche Parish near Leeville, Louisiana, AT3ril, 198211 by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.)

Resource: Marshlands, mineral resources

Resource Use: Oil and gas exploration, and production;
pipelines for oil and gas
Resource User*: Oil and gas exploration and production
companies; pipeline companies

Location: Throughout coastal zone

156

FIGURE 4.9
Projected Shoreline Retreat 1980 - 2030 2030@
SOURCE Lp
fExlyacied from U.S. Department of Cammercei 1978 ------ 102!5

- -------- ---------

15
------------ - --------

2 0

200
--------------- -------------------------------

2000
-------------------------------- -----------

---------------------------------- 1995 - ------

1990
-- --------------------------------------------

--------------------------

1980

Gulf of MOXIC6
0-- 16000 2000
&
'ie ie-""'
@ 'el

Repared by
Burk Bi Associates, Inc. 6800

FIGURE 4.10
Major Vegotative -Communities of Pourchon Island
LEGEND
Saline Marsh Black Mangrove

Beach Petroleum Site
(Non - Marsh) lift:
Spoil Area HI

SOURCE
Burk and Associates, Inc. 1980
neid Survey
U.S. Department of Commerce
1978

allows a
masses :2
s8 age at
0 log on ago
0 go 0 goo, 0:088 1 1
a sell
:06 an 9 a see:
gas
so
6 most I a :6 a a
l! HIN: one of a a so
111:111110 1: :1 gig a
.11 H an 1
I I M
H
a ago I
goo

6
H Clio;
1- 1- ...
3699H I I I
I mul
it:
H H
sit
Y -'tzk -1
-ill:11HUMIffitill 1 1111 OIL, I
11 pig
fl. UP,
P 1POW

Gulf of
0

Sca

Pre
Flur

Identified
Conflicts: Destruction of marsh directly by canal con-
struction, indirectlv by continued erosion
of cafial banks

Saltwater intrusion causing marsh deterioration
and erosion

Destruction or alteration of nursery areas
.for shrimp and-finfish andother shellfish
thus adversely affecting fishing-industry

Increased pressures on leveed off areas due
to open water pressure- on the levees caused
by erosion of marshlands

Oil and gas activity occurs throughout the coastal zone.
Policies in E.M.U.'s that are affected by this activity are
geared to the particular environment and particular problems
caused by channelization. and erosion. E.M.U.'s suffering
particularly from environmental change caused by canals and
saltwater are: South Barataria, Clovellv, Paccourci, Golden
Meadow. and Leeville K.M.U.'s.

It is anticipated that the CZ-M orogram will make signi-
ficant progress in amelior&tingor in some cases negating
damage caused by these activities.

Resource: Renewable shellfish and finfish

Resource Use: Harvesting renewable fisheries resources

Resource User: Recreational/commercial fishermen

Location: Throughout coastal zone

Identified
Conflict: Fishing methods,.inequities in regulations

This conflict is more of a regulatorv rather than environ-
mental probl4m. Conflicts regarding the definitions of,
recreational vs. commercial shrimp harvesting', types of nets used
to fish (gill nets, for example) have caused complaints among-
commercial fishermen that "recreational" fishing is eating into
their supply of fish and shellfish.

If coastal deterioration continues, this problem should
get more acute as the resource base dwindles making competition
more intense for the decreasing resource. Continuous monitor-
ing of rules and regulations regarding fisheries will aid in
fair administration and apportionment of resources to both
groups. Ml should help to stabilize the wetland nursery areas

159

that help aeneratcs the fisheries resou rce uti lized by both
recreational and commercial fishermen.

Resource: Freshwater

Resource Use: Potable water for human use

'Resource User: Coastal zone residents

Location: Throughout coastal zone

Identified
Conflict: Saltwater intrusion- caused by natural and man-
made processes threaten to invade freshwater
supplies for coastal residents

There is no freshwater available from the water table in
the coastal zone of the parish. The Intracoastal Waterway blocks
freshwater from Bayou Lafourche from reaching south of Laros,
Freshwater is obtained from a water plant at Lockp6rt (outside
of the coastal zone) pumped from Bayou Lafourche. This plant
has already experienced limited saltwater intrusion on occasion
into the water supply used for @urification. Continued coastal
deterioration and saltwater intrusion will exacerbate this*
problem and may eventually result in an unusable water supply
at this point.

No easy solution exists for this problem. CZM would hell)
to slow down saltwater intrusion but the real long term solu-
tions involve either increased freshwater flow down Bayou
Lafourche or plant relocation further north or both.

160

CHAPTER V

THE CMI ORDINANCE

INTRODUCTION

This chapter contains the text of a proposed Coastal

tone Management Ordinance for La-fourche Parish. This

ordinance has been-reviewed bv the Louisiana Department of

Natural Resources, the LSU Sea Grant Legal Section., and the

Lafoarche ParislL District Attorney. It meets all state and

local requirements for an ordinance of this type.

The ordinance accomplishes 4 main objectives.
Li (1) Legally establishes the.CZM Program
(2.) Establishes a permitting system
(3) Establishes a permit administrator position to
manage the CZM program
(4) Provides. for enforcement penalties

Passage of this ordinance'automatically passes the entire
program as outlined in this report and 'referred in the ordinance.

The followinsr is the text of that ordinance,.

161

LAFOURCTIE PARISH

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

ORDINANCE

PREPARED BY:.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
APPROVED BY CZM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE
DECEMBER, 1981
REVIEWED BY PARISH DISTRICT
ATTORNEY-'S OFFICE
APRIL, 1982

ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE

ARTICLE 2 TITLE

ARTICLE 3 DEFINITIONS

ARTICLE 4 - PERMITTED USES

ARTICLE 5 - ADMINISTRATION

ARTICLE 6 - PERMIT PROCEDURE AND FORMAL REQUIREMENTS

ARTICLE 7 - PERMIT PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

ARTICLE 8 - TERM OF PERMIT

ARTICLE 9 - VARIANCE

ARTICLE 10 - EMERGENCY USES

ARTICLE 11 APPEALS

ARTICLE 12- MODIFICATTONS,SUSPENSIONS, AND REVOCATIONS

ARTICLE 13 - PENALTY

ARTICLE 14 - AMENDMENT

ARTICLE 15 - SEVERABILITY

ARTICLE 16 - CONSISTENCY

ARTICLE 17 EFFECTIVE DATE

163

ARTICLE 1 PURPOSE

Section 1.

The Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Ordinance
is hereby enacted for the purp-oses of:

(1) Ensuring sound management of uses in the coastal
zone in order to:

(a) protect, restore, and enhance the resources of
the coastal zone for the benefit. and enjoyment
of present and future generations;

(b) ensure the maintenance, continued protection and
prudent use of the natural resources, renewable
and nonrenewable, therein;

fisheries, aquatic life, %vet-
(d) protect wildlife,
lands, estuaries and waterways; and

(e) preserve and protect the remaining scenic and
historic resources of the coastal zone;

(2) promoting coordinated development within the coastal
zone by promoting procedures and practices that
resolve conflicts among competing uses within the
coastal zone in accordance with the purposes of this
ordinance. and the simplification of administrative
procedures;. and

(3) striving to maintain a balance between conservation
and development in the coastal zone oi Lafourche
Parish; and

(4) implementing the.goals, objectives, and policies
pursuant to the local coastal zone management program.-

164

ARTICLE 2 - TITLE

Section 1.

'This Ordinance shall be known, referred to, and cited
as "The Coastal Zone Management Ordinance of Lafourche
Parish".

165

ARTICLE 3 DEFINITIONS

1. Local Administrator shall mean the administrator of
fhe Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Program
or designated permit officer or agent appointed by
the Lafourche Parish Council.

2. Buildina shall mean any structure designed or built
Yor the support, enclosure, shelter, or protection of
a person, an an:!.mal, a chattel, or pronerty of any
kind.

3. "oastal Zone shE.11 mean the coastal waters and ad-
jacent shorelands within the boundaries of the
coastal zone es,:ablished in Section.213.4 of Act 361,
the State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act
of 1978, which are strongly influenced by each other,
and in proximity to the shorelines, and uses of which
have a-direct and significant impact on coastal waters.

4. Coastal Zone Review Board (also known as Coastal Zone
Xdvisory Commit-tee) shall mea.n.an independent committee
appointed by the Lafourche Parish Counc-11. It shall
function as am advisory body for decisions regarding
coastal zone use permits and the Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Ordinance of Lafourche Parish. This committee
shall also assist in the implementation of the local
program; assist in the'development of ' special management
programs affecting special areas (if needed); and report
progress or problems in the implementation of the local
program as well as convey ideas and suggestions to the
local government and the administrator.

5. Fastlands are lands surrounded by publicly owned, main-,
tained, or otherwise validly existing levees, or natural
formations, as of the.effecti-ve date of this Part or as
may be lawfully constructed in the future, which levees'
or natural formations would normally prevent activities,
not to ticlude the pumping of water for drainage purposes,
within the surrounded area from having direct and signi-
ficant impacts on coastal waters.

Non-conforming Use shall mean.any use orostructure which
joes not conform to a provision or requirement of this
ordinance but was lawfully established'prior to'the
effective date of this ordinance.

166

7. Permitted Use shall mean any use specifically listed in
this ordinance as a use occurring within the Lafourc'he
Parish Coastal Zone not requiring a coastal zone use
permit.

8. Person shall mean an individual, corporation, partner-
ship, association., municipality or political subdivision
of local or state government.

0 Single Family Residence shall mean any building designed
fo-T-Or Tc-c-u-P-1-ed exciusively by- one (1) family for resi-
dential purposes.

'10. Structure shall mean. any building, road, flum, conduit,
siphon, aqueduct, flare, oil well, telephone line,
electrical power line, bridge. bulkhead, dike., jetty
pier, popier, airstrip, parking facility, or any other
construction or erection.

11. Variance shall mean a modification of the literal
provi s of the ordinance granted when strict enforce-
ment. of the ordinance would cause undue hardship owing
to'circumstances unique-to the property on which the
variance. is sought. -A variance shall not be granted
except where (a) undue-hardship-and (b) unique circum-
stances are directly connected to the property.

12. Watercourse./Waterwa shall mean any body of water,
navigable or not, including lakes, rivers, streams, canals,.
bayous., lagoons, bays, or any body of water which is
located in the-Parish of Lafourche.

13. Wetland shall mean any lowlands which are-generally covered
with measurable amounts of water .. such as marshes, swamps,
wet meadows, sloughst, and river overflow land, and are
characterized by wetland vegetation.

14. Use of*State Concern shall mean those uses which directly
@d significantly affect coastal waters and which are in
need of coastal management and which have impacts of greater
than local significance or which significantly affect
iaterests of regional. state, or national concern.

Uses of state concern .sh-all include, but not be limited
to:

(a) Any dredge or fill activity which intersects with
more than one water body.

(b) Projects involving use of state owned land or
water bottoms.

167

(d) NIational -interest projects.

(e) Projects occurring in'more than one parish.

(f) All mineral activities, including exploration
for, and pToduction of, oil, gas, and other
minerals, all dredge and fill uses associated
therewith, and all other assobiated uses,

(g) All pipelines for the gathering, transportation,
or transmission of oil, gas, and other minerals.

(h) Energy facility siting and development.

(i) Uses of local concern which'ma''y significantly
affect interests of regional, state, or national
concern.

15. Uses of local conce:.-n shall mean those uses which directly
and significantly affect coastal waters and are in need
of coastal management but are not uses of state c6ncern
and which should be regulated primarily at the local level
if the local government has an approved program. Uses of
local concern shall include, but not be limited to:

(a) Privately funded projects which are not uses of
state concern.

(b) Publicly funded projects which are not uses of
state concern.

(d) Jetties or breakwaters.

(e) Dredge or fill projects not intersecting more
than one water body.

(f) Bulkheads.

(g) Piers.

(h) Campti and cattlewalks.

(i) Maintenance dredging.

(j) Private water control structures of less than
$15.000 in cost.

(k) Uses on chen.iers, salt domes, or similar land
forms.

16. ....oastal Waters shall. mean those bayous. lakes, inlets,
estuaries., rivers, bayous, and other, bodies of water
within the boundaries of the coastal zone which have
measurable seawater content (under normal weather
conditions over a period of years).

17.- Coastal Use Permits shall mean a'permit- required by
Section =13.-171 -of the State-and Local Coastal Resources
11anagement Act of 1978 as amended in 1979 and-1980 and
this ordinance.
18. Use shall mean any use or'activity within the coastal
zone which has a direct and significant impact on
coastal waters..

19. Maximum extent practicable shall mean the greatest degree
T_
of'compliance attainable given environmental. economic,
an-d/or legal constraints on a coastal use permit applicant.

169

ARTICLE 4 PERMITTED USES

Section 1.

The following activities within the Lafourche Parish
Coastal Zone do not require a coastal use permit except
when the activity would have direct and significant impact
on coastal waters.

(1) Activities occurring wholly on lands five feet
above mean sea level;

(2) Activities occurring within fastlands;

(3) Agricultural, forestry and aquaculture activities
on lands consistently used in the past for such
activities;

(4) Hunting, fishing, trapping, and the preservation
of scenic, historic, and scientific-areas and
wildlife preserves;

(5) Normal MgLintenance or, repair of existing structures
including emergency repairs of damage caused by
accident, fire or the element-s;

(6) Uses and activities within the special area which
have been permitted by the Offshore Terminal
Authority in keeping with its Environmental Protection
Plan;

(7) Construction of a single family residence or camp
for the use of a natural person or his family
provided the residence or camp has a waste disposal
system approved by the Local Administrator

(8) Construction and modification of navigational aids
such as channel markers and anchor buoys;

(9) Const'ructio n, maintenance, repair, or normal use of
any dwelling, apartment complex, hotel, motel,
restaurant, service station, garage, repair shop,
school, hospital, church. office building, store,
amusement park, sign, driveway, sidewalk, parking
lot, fence or utility pole or line, when these
activities occur wholly on lands five feet or more
above mean sea level or on fastlands.

170

(10) Emergency construction necessary to protect life
or property from damage by the elements.

(11) Non-conforminir uses established prior to the ena'ct--
meat of this ordinance.

171

AITICLE 5 ADMINISTRATION

Section 1.

The Lafourche Parish Council shall appoint the local
administrator to administer the local Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program and issue permits based upon the criteria
established by the local Coastal Zone Management Plan for
Lafourche Parish as adopted by the Parish Council, and in
conformance with the State and Local. Coastal Resources Act
of 1978 and the Rules and Regulations for the Louisiana
Coastal Zone Program established pursuant to that act.
There shall exist a Coastal Zone Management Review Board
composed of nine (9) members appointed by the Parish Council.
All members shall serve at the pleasure of the Parish Council.

Section 2.

The Coastal Zone Management Review Board shall perform
the following duties:

(1) To review and comment to the Parish Council on any .71
rules and regulat;ions relative to coastal zone manage-
ment, whenever it is felt by the Review Board or the F
Cotmcil that review or co=ient is necessary.

(2) To review and recommend to the Parish Council any
modifications to the Parish Coastal Zone Management
Ordinance.

(3) To assist the local administrator whenever possible
in the review and comment procedures on coastal use
permits of "State Concern" and in the issuance of
coastal use permits of "Local Concern" (as defined
in the rules and regulations for the Louisiana
Coastal Zone Management Program).

Section 3.

The primary role of the parish Coastal Zone Management
Review Board is that of assisting in the establishment and
implementation of a local Coastal Zone Management Program.
Their expertise will be used b7 the local administrator to
assist with permit evaluations. The Parish Council may
dissolve, restructure, or,alter the duties of this committee
at any time t.o meet the needs of the Local Coastal Zone
Management Program.

172

Section 4.

The local administrator shall have the following
enumerated authority:

(1) To issue, deny, or modify coastal use permits
consistent*with the State Coastal Zone Management
Legislation and Guidelines and this ordinance-.

(2) To adopt any rules and regulations which are-con-
sistent with the constitution and laws of the State
of Louisiana, State Coastal Zone Management Program
Legislation and.Guide-lines and the local roastal
Zone Management Plan and are-reasonable and nec-
essary to carry out the purpose of this ordinance.
Such rules shall be in conformance with the
generally established procedures for the Lafourche
Parish Council and may be reviewed by them for
concurrence with established parish policy.

(3) To conduct any investigation necessary t o comply
with the-purposes of this ordinance;

(4.) To notify the New Orleans District of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Regulatory Functions Rianch;
adjacent communities; and other appropriate agencies
prior to any alteration or-relocation of a water-
course; and

(5) To review and comment on all "Uses of State Concern"
Permit Requests for-Lafourche Parish.

Section 5.

It shall be the duty of the administrator to enforce
this ordinance.

173

ARTICLE 6 PERMIT PROCEDURE AND FORMAL REQUIREMENTS

Section 1.

Any.person seeking to perform any activity or use
within the coastal zone must first obtain a permit from the
Parish Council through its local administrator authorizing
such activity or use, unless such use is a "permitted use"
as set forth in this ordinance or the permit request is a
"use!of State concern" (in which case an applicant must
obtain a coastal use permit from the Coastal Management
Section of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources).

Section 2.

The following procedure shall be followed in applying
for a coastal zone use permit:
(1) All appii-cations shall be made on the form(s)
prescribed by the Parish Council or the local
admin i strat or.*

(2) All applications shall be submitted to the local.
admini,strator at the facility designated by the
Parish Council in the coiLstal zone or the Coastal
Management-Section of the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources.

(3) All applications shall be accompanied by:

(a) an application fee of $50.00 asssessed to
cover permit processing, and publishing of
required notices for permit applications of
"Local Concern" as defined by the state and
local Coastal Zone Management Program;

(b) maps showing the actual location, size, and
dimensions, of the property on which the use
is to take place;

(d) a list of all applications, approvals, and
denials already made concerning the activity
by federal, state,- or local agencies;

(e) a description of the extent to which any water-
course or natural drainage will be altered or
relocated as a result of the proposed activity;

174

(f) If-the development involves dredging, a
description of:

(i) the type-, composition, and quantity
of the material to be dredged;

(ii) the method of dredging; and
(iii-) the dredged material disposal site; and
(g) any additional information which the local
administration requests.
(h) If it is determined that activity applied
for is a ,use of state concern" and the
applicaat has paid a fee to the parish said
fee will be returned to the applicant within
15 days of said determination..

(i) If an applicant applies for a local use permit
at the. state level with the application and fee
said application and fee will be-sent to the
local administrator within 5 days of determi-
nation of a, use of local concern.

175

ARTICLE 7 PERMIT PROCEDURE AND ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION

Section 1.

An application shall be deemed received only when and
if it is in proper form and upon receipt of any additional
information requested by the local administrator.

Within two (2) days of receipt of an application for a
coastal use permit, the local administrator will make a
determination as to whether the permit is of state or local
concern. Within ten (10) days of receipt of an application
for a coastal use permit,the local administrator shall
publish notice of such application in the official journal
i. of the parish,.stating the nature of the proposed use, the
location where such work is proposed, and its estimated costs.
Said notice shall indicate that all interested persons may
make commen-ts'or suggestions to the local administrator on
said application within twenty-five (25) days-of publication.

'MTE- Final administrative authority to determine whether
an application is of local.or state concern rests with the
state administrator. This authority can only be overruled
by tho judIcial system.

Section 2.

The-local administrator shall make the determination-- b-ased
upon the state requirements of whether the proposed use is- of
state or local concern, within two-(2) days of receipt of the.
application and within the ten.(10) day limit of Section 1.
i- The administrator's decision concerning the proposed use deter-
mination*must be sent to DNR within the two day time period.'

(1) If the local administrator determines that the pro-
posed use is of state concern, the Coastal Zone
Management Review Board and the Parish Council qhall
be notified and *given: information on the proposed use
to provide the opportunity-for comments and a recom-
mendatioa to the state agency -issuing the permit.

(2) If the proposed use is determined to be of "local
concern" the local adminis-trator will issue, deny,
or issue with conditions the permit based on the
criteria established in the Coastal Use Guidelines,
ki State and Local Coastal Resources Management Act of
1978, as amended, State regulations pursuant to that
act and the Lafourche CZM Program.

(3) The local Coastal Zone Management Review Board and the
Parish Council will bei provided with all information
on coastal use permits "of local concern" in order

176

to seek their advice, concurrence and comments on
the-direction of the permit program. Permit.
applications will also be available for any
interested person or organization to review and
t on within the designated time period.
commen

(4) the Parish Council may override a, coastal use
permit recommendation by the local administrator
on "uses of local concern" if, based on all avail-
able information provided to the Council by the
local admihistrator, the Coastal Zone Management
Review Board, or any interested person or organi-.
zation, the permit decision can be proven with
clear and convincing proof to be inconsistent with
the local program. The "override" decision shall
be in writing, along with the reasons for the
decision, and shall be forwarded to the Coastal
Management Section of the Louisiana Department of
Natural Resources by the Secretary-Treasurer of the
Parish Council. This override decision must be
made within the time period specified for comment
in Article 7 Section. 1.

(5) The Parish Council may also override a decision
made by the local administrator on whether a
coastal use permit application is of "state" or
"local" concern if, based on all available infor-
matIon. provided to the Council by the local
administrator, the decision c= be proven to be
in error beyond a reasonable doubt. The "over-
ride" decision shall be in writinTalongr with the
reasons for-the decisions and shall be forwarded
to the Coastal Management Section of the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources by the Secretary-
Treasurer of the Parish Council. Such decisions
shall be made in the appropriate time period for
jurisdiction determination as specified in.Section
1 of Article 7 of this ordinance.

Section 3.

A public hearing on a coastal use permit application
shall be held if:

(1) Any person makes a request in writing within the
comment period specified in the public notice that
a public hearing be held to consider material or
materials at issue in a permit application. '"h9
request for public hearing shall state any, and'all
factors which indicate that a substantial issue
-T7 exists and that there is a valid public interest
to be served in holding a public hearing.

177

(2) Public hearings may.also be held *hen there is
significant public opposition to a proposed use,
or there have been requests from legislators,
from the Parish Council or other local authority,
or in controversial cases involving significant
economic, social, or environmental issues. The
local administrator or Parish Council has the
discretion to require hearings in any particular
case subject to the limits of this ordinance.

(3) Public notice shall be given at least thirty (30)
days in advance of any public hearing. Notice shall
be sent to all persons requesting notices of public
hearings and shall be posted in all governmental
bodies having.an interest in the subject matter of
the hearing. Such notice may be limited in area
consistent with the nature of the hearing.

(4) The notice shall contain the time, place. and nature
of the hearing, and the location of materials avail-
able for public*inspection.

(5) The hearing file shall remain-open for a period of
ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing
for submission of written comments or other material.
This time period may be extended for good cause by
the administrator or Parish Council.

:Section 4.

grant,
The local administrator shall render a decision to
deny or grant with modifications the coastal use permit based
on the criteria established in the State and Local Coastal
Resources Management Act of 1978 (Act 361) as amended, the
state regulations pursuant to that act, and the Lafourche
Parish CZ?4 Program. Such decisions shal -I bemade in the
appropriate time period given the individual circilln tances
of the permit. The decisions shall be in writing, stating
the reasons for the granting, denying, or thi modification of
the requested coastal use permit.

Section 5.

The local administrator shall be directed by the Parish
Council to issue the coastal use permit or notify the appli-
cant of the denial or modification of'the requested coastal
use permit. All decisions made pursuant to this ordinance
shall be published in the official journal of the parish
within ten (10) days after-said decision has been rendered,
and,all decisions shall be made part of the official record
by the-Parish Council.

178

Section. 6.

Coastal use permits issued pursuant to this ordinance
shall be available for-public inspection during business
hours in the Office of the Administrator.

T-

179

ARTICLE 8 TERM OF PERMIT

Section 1.

A coastal use permit within the coastal zone shall
remain in effect for the length of time specified in the.
permit.

Section 2..

If no term is specified, the permit shall expire one
(1) year from date of issuance. If work is not completed
within the term of the permit, the applicant shall notify
the local administrator and request an extension of time
on thb permit pursuant to Section 3 of this article.

Section 3.

A-coasta,l use permit may be renewed if the local
administrator finds that substantial progress has been
made on said development or that the perm.1.ttee has been
precluded from acting-by litigation, material shortages,
labor problems, or other events beyond the permittee's
control. In no-case shall a coastal use permit be renewed
for more than one (1) year past the time specified in the
original coastal use permit.
Fri

180

ARTICLE 9 VARIANCE

Section 1.

The local administrator may be directed by the Parish
Council to issue a permit for uses of local concern
in variance of the provisions of this ordinance, if the.
enforcement of such provisions would cause undue hardship
owing to circumstances unique to the individual property
on which the variance is sought. Such a permit shall not be
issued unless the Parish Council makes.written findings
that:

(1) exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions apply to the subject property which
do not apply generally to other properties with-
in the coastal zone and

(2) the variance will not be materially detrimental
to the coastal mzLnagement program or neighboring
landowner's rights and does not contribute to
adverse cumulative impacts.

(3) the variance is approved by the Coastal Management
Section of the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources.

Section 2.

The decision whether or not to issue a variance shall
be made within the appropriate-time period for comment as
specified in Article 7 Section, 1 of this ordinance.

Section 3

A public notice of the proposed variance sdall be
published in the official journal of the parish. Such
notice shall contain the time@,.place, and nature of the
hearing and the location of materials available for public
inspection.

Section 4.

A permit issued under this section shall not take effect
until fourteen (14) days after issuance thereof.

ARTICLE 10 EMERGENCY USES

Section 1.

Emergency. An emergency is a grave situation that
poses an immediate danger to life, health, or property.
An emergency situation cannot await one of the other
permit processes. Coastal use permits are not required
in advance for conducting uses necessary to-correct
emergency situations.

Section 2.

Emergency s_-'.tuations are those brought about by
natural or man-made causes, such as storms, floods, fires,
wrecks, explosions, spills, which would result in hazard
to life,.loss of property, or damage to the environment if
immediate correci:ive action were not taken. This exemption
applies only to those corrective actions which are ifnmediately.
required for the protection of lives, property or the en-
vironment necessitated by the emergetcy situation.

Section 3.

Pr1or to undertaking such emergency uses, or as soon
as possible thereafter, the person carrying out the use shall
notify the local administrator and the Parish Council and
give a brief description of the emergency use and the
necessity for carrying it out without a coastal use permit.

Section 4.

As soon as possible or within sixty (60) days@ whichever
is soonerafter the emergency situation arises, any person who
has conducted an emergency use shall report on the emergency
use to the local administrator. A determination shall be
made' asto whether the emergency use will continue to have
direct and significant impacts on coastal waters. If so, the
user sha'.1 apply for an after-the-fact permit.

Section 5.

An "after-the-fact" coastal use permit application will
be treated in exactly the same manner as a normal permit
application as described in prior sections of this ordinance.
The coastal use permit may be issued, issued with conditions,
or be denied. If it is issued with conditiofts, the permit
applicant may be required to fulfill the conditions stated
in the nermit even though the permit activity has already

182

taken place. If the coastal use permit is denied, the permit
applicant may lbe required to undo what was done, under the
emergency" situation and restore the area to its prior
4.4 condition to.the maximum extent practicable.

F-

cis
183

ARTICLE 11 APPEALS

Section 1.

All permit decisions regarding coastal use permits
"of local concern" and "state concern" may be appealed
directly to the district court of the Parish of-Lafourche.

Section 2.

All appeals must be filed within thirty (30) days of
the giving of public notice regarding the-decision at issue,
except that appeals regarding the State Administrator's
decisions as to whether us.es are of state or local concern,
shall.be filed within ten (10) days-of-the giving of notice
to the Parish Council.

Section 3.

A petition for appeal must be filed with the Louisiana
roastal Commission and service made on the applicant, the
L. State Administrator and the Parish Council and local admin-
istrator.

Section 4.

Judicia.1 review shall be pursuant to the-Loulibiana-
Administrative Procedures Act. Cases will be tried with
preference and priority. Trial.'de-novo shall be held upom
request: by any party."

184

ARTICLE 12 MODIFICATIONS, SUSPENSIONS,
AND REVOCATIONS

Sect ion 1.

The terms and conditions of a. permit may be modified
by the local administrator or coastal use permit applicant
to allow changes in the permitted use, in the plans and
specifications for that use, in the methods by which.the
use is being implemented, or to assure that the permitted
use will be in conformity with the coastal management
program. Changes which would significantly increase the
impacts of a permitted activity shall be processed as new
applications for permits not as a modification.

Section 2.

A coastal use permit may be modified.upon request of
the permit recipient:

(1) if mutual agreement can be reached on a-modification,
written notice-of the@modification will be given to
the permittee.

(2). if mutual agreement, cannot be-reached, a..permittee's:
request for a modification shall be considered
denied.

Section 3.

The local administrator and/or Parish Council may sus-
pend a coastal use permit upon finding that:

(1) the permittee has failed or refuses to comply with
the terms and conditions of the permit or any
modifications thereof, or

(2) the permittee has submitted.false or incomplete
information in his application orotherwise, or

(3) the permittee has failed or refused to comply with
any lawful order-or directive of the local admin-
istrator, State Administrator or Parish Council.

Section 4.

The Parish Council shall notify the peimittee in writing
that the coastal use permit has been suspended and the reasons
therefor and order the permittee to cease immediately all.

185

-- - ----- -- . .....

previously authoriied activities. The notice shall also
advise the permittee that he will be given, upon request
made within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice, an
opportunity to respond to the reasons given for the
suspension. This response shall be in writing stating
the justification for violation of permit conditions or
refuting that the permit conditions were violated.

The permittee may also be allowed to state a case at a
hearing before the Paxish Council if he chooses to do so
as. long as the request is in writing@within the ten (10)
day period of Section 4.

Section 5.

After consideration of the permittee's written response
by the local administrator or after consideration of the !7
response given at a hearing before the Council, a'decision
shall be rendered by the administratcr in the case of a
written response or the Council in the case of a public
hearing to reinstate, modify or revoke the coastal use
permit. If no response is forthcoming from the permittee,
within thirty,(30) days of issuance of notice of suspension,
the administrator shall reinstate, modify or revoke the
coastal use permit. In all cases, the administrator shall
notify the permittee of the action tUcen.

Sectiaa 6.

If, after compliance with the suspension procedures,
the local administrator or Parish Council determines that
revocation. or modification of the coastal use permit is
warranted, written notice of the revocation or modification
shall be given to the permittee.

186

ARTICLE 13 PENTALTY

Section 1.

Violation or failure to comply with the provisions
of this urdinance shall be punishable by a fine of not
less than one-hundred ($100.00) and not more than five-
hundred ($500.00) or by imprisonment for not more than
n
inety (90) days,or by both.

Section 2.

Each days violations or failure to comply shall be
considered as constituting a separate offense.

Section 3.

A person found in violation of or- failing to comply
with the provisions of this ordinance may be required by
the local administrat,or-to,restore to the maximum extent
practicable, the affected area to its condition prior-to
the development'. Maximum extent. practicable', as- it per-
tains to restoration, will be determined by the administrator
base,d on the degree of restoration possible given-the en-
vironmental conditions'of the area in question; the economic
ability of the permit holder to accomplish the restoration,
and any legal constraints applying to restoration and the
particular needs within the. management unit as defined by
the Lafourche Parish CZM Program-

187

ARTICLE 14 AMENDMENT

Section 1.

The Lafourche Parish Council may amend the Lalourche
Parish Coastal Zone Management Ordinance by a simple
majority of its members.

Section 2.

The "Lafourche Parish Coastal Management Ordinance,,
may be amended for the following enumerated purposes:

(1) A section or sections of the ordinajice is judged
unconstitutional or invalid.

(2) A section or sections of the ordinance is deemed
inadequate to implement the Lafourche CZM Program
by the local administrator or Parish Council or
the Louisiana DeparMent of Natural Resources.

(3) A section or sections of the ordinance are deemed
superfluous in the implementation of the local
program by the administrator or the, Parish Council.

(4) The State Coastal Zone Mz&nagement Program is amended
changing the role of the A'aafourche Parish Coastal
Zone Management Program.

Section 3.

Petitions for amendments of this ordinafice may be sub-
mitted to the Council by its own membership, the local
administrator, the CZM Review Board or the Louisiana Depart-
ment of Natural Resources. Such petitions shall be in writing
stating_the section(s) to be amended, the reasons for the
amendment will have on the local Coastal Zone Management Plan.
Such amendment petitions will also be filed with the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources for their review and approval.
No alterations or modifications to this ordinance shall become
effective until-approved by the Secretary of the Louisiana De-
partment of Natural Resources.

188

Section 4.

Public notice of the proposed ordinance amendment shall
be given within ten (10) days of the filing petition of
amendment. Said notice will indicate that all interested
persons may make comments or suggestions to the local admin-
istrator or Parish Coun-cil within twenty-five (15) days of the
publication of the notice.

Section 5.

A public heazing on all proposed ordinance amendments
shall be held. Any person may make a request in writing
within the comment period specified in the public notice that-
a public hearing be held to consider materialor materials at
issue in a proposed amendment.

(1) Public notice shall be given at least thirty (30)
days in advance of any public hearing. Notice shall
be sent to all persons requesting notices of public
hearings and shall be posted in all governmental
bodies having an interest in the subject matter of
the hearing. Such notice may be limited in area
consistent with the nature, of the hearing.
L
(2) T'he@notice@shall contain the time,.place, nature-of
the hearing, and the location of materials available
for public inspectiorr.

(3) The hearing. file-sha.11 remain open for-a period of
ten (10) days after the close of the public hearing
for submission ofwritten comments.or other material..
This time period may be extended for good cause.

Section 6.

The Parish Council shall, after the considerations of all.
available information, adopt or reject proposed amendments to
the local Coastal Zone Management Ordinance.

189

7- ---------

ARTICLE 15 SEVERABILITY

Section 1.

This ordinance and the various parts, sections, sub-,
sections and clauses-thereof, are hereby declared to be
severable. If any part, sen-tence, paragraph, subsection,
section, clause is adjudged unconstitutional or invalid,
it is hereby provided that the remainder of the Ord.inance
shall not be affected thereby.

l9b

L
ARTICLE 16 CONSISTENCY

Section 1.

The Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Ordinance
will be consistent with the state guidelines, the State and
Local Coastal Resources Management Act of 1978 as amended
in 1979 and 1980, and the state regulations.promulgated under
that act and the Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management
Program which this ordinance implements.

191

ARTICLE 17 AINMAL REPORT
Ll

Section 1.

An annual report on the activities of the Lafour( e
Parish local program shall be submitted to the SecretE y
each year and shall include:

(1) The number, type, and characteristics of the
applications for coastal use and other permi-

(2) The number, type, and characteristics of coa-- al
use and other permits granted, conditioned, nied
and withdrawn. L-J

(3) The number, type, and characteristics of perr ts
appealed to the Coastal Commission or the coi -ts.

(4) Results of any appeals.

(5) A record of all variances granted.

(6) A record of any enforcement actions taken.

(7) A description of any problem areas within th(; state
or local program and proposed solutions to ai- such
problems.

(8) Proposed changes in the state or local progr i.

Section 2.

The first annual report should be submitted to t*@
Secretary twelve months following the implementation Lte
of the local program.

192

ARTICLE 18 EFFECTIVE DATE'

Section 1.

This ordinance shall be effective ninety (90) days.
after final.publication by the Lafourche Parish Council.
and final approval by the Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources.

193

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Burk and Associates (1980) Development Potential Studr
Fourchon Island. Burk and Associates, New Orleans,
Louisiana.

Durabb, E. and M. Landry (1978) Coastal Zone Management
for Lafourche Parish, Volume I, II, III, Thibodaux,
Louisiana, South Central Planning and Development
Commission.

U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and At-mos-
pheric Administration, Office of Coastal Zone Manage-
ment and Louisiana Department of Natural Resources,
Coastal Management Section (1980) Louisiana Coastal
Resources Program, Final Environmental Impact-Tt-ate-
ment, Baton Rouge, Louisiana, fice of Coastal
Management, U.S. Department of Commerce and Coastal
Management Section, Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources.

Wicker, K.M. et al. (1980) The Mississippi Deltaic Plain
Region Habitat Mapping 13tudy. 4V)4 maps. U.S. F
and Wilalife Service, OTTi e'of Biological Services.
FWS/OBS-79/07. U.S. Government Printing Office,
Washington, D.'C.

Wicker K.M. (1980) Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region
Ecological Cbaracterization: A 4abitat mapping Study.
A user's guide to the habitat Maps. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Office pf Biological Services.
rTS/OBS-79/07. U.S. Government Printing Office,
'"ashington, D.C.

194

VOLUME Ir

Appendix i.

INFORMATION BASE FOR CZM PFOGYPANf

The following is a listing of technical environmental

information, mainly maps and photographs, available for use

in the Lafourche Parish CZM Program.

In addition to this, the Landsat Demonstration Project

and numerous technical reports concerning CZM are available

in the Parish planning library.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife- Service habitat maps were nur-

chased and simplified using colored tracing overlays of

groupings of environments.. These tracing overlays were used

to set E.H.U. aolicies and are available at the Lafourche.

Parish Planning Department.

Color view-graph slides of E.M.U. land cover from the

Landsat Project are also available at the-Plannine Department

Office.

cut

195

MAPS FOR LAFOURCHE PARISH C721 PROGRAM

TITLE: Official Map of Louisiana Coastal Zone Boundary

DATE: 1980 Edition

SCALE: 1/61' = 1 mile

AREA COVERED: State of Louisiana

PREPARER: Department of Transportation and Development, Planning
Division

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: U.S. Highways, Interstate Highwairs, State Highways,
National and State Forests, Parish Boundaries, State
Boundaries, State Institutions, Corporate Towns and
.Cities, Highlands, Marsh or swamp lands, Game reeerves,
Wildlife Refuges, Military Bases, Fish Hatcheries,
Levees, State Parks, U.S. Army Cantonmentsi Soundings
in feet, Civil Airports, Coastal-Zone Boundary

TITLE: Lafourche Parish West, South, and East Sections

DATE: August, 1977

SCALE: 1" = 125,000'

AREA COVERED: Lafourche Parish (in 3 sections)

PREPARER: Louisiana State Planning Office

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Church, school, airport, quarry, mine, marsh, canal,
bayou, major waterway, gas and oil field, unimproved
road, hard surface road, 4 lane hard surface road,
levee, and railroads

TITLE: Lafourche Parish (81 x 14)

DATE: No Date Given

SCALE: 1" 5 miles Planning purposes only

196

MAPS IN LAFOURCHE CZM- PROGRAM

AREA COVERED: Lafourche Parish

PREPARER: South Central Planning and Development Commission

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: U.S. Highways, State Highways, Parish Boundaries.

TITLE: Timbalier @E.H,U.)

DATE: 1978

SCALE: 1" = 24,0001
AREA COVERED: The area is bordered. on the north by the"Raccourci
E.M.U., on the east by the Fourchon E.M.U., on the
south by the Gulf of Mexico, and on the west by the
Terrebonne Parish Line.

PREPARER: Sandi Aymond, Lafourche Parish Council, PlanningDepart-
ment

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Spoil bank, salt marsh, upland, beach, water, mud
flats, land under- water, mangrove

TITLE: Raccourci (R.M.U.)

DATE: 1978

SCALE: I" = 24,000'

AREA COVERED: The area is bordered on the north by the Bully Camp
E.M.U. and Grand Bayou (Bayou Pointe-au-chien E.M.U.),
on. the west by the Terrebonne-Lafourche 'Parish.Bound-
ary, and the-natural levee of Bayou Pointe-au-Chien
(northern half of'E.M'.U`.). Ori the south, the bound-
ary is the Timbalier E.M.U. - a line running from
Belle Pass through Timbalier Bay just north- of Casse-
Tete Island westward to the Terrebonne-Lafourche
border. On the east, the, E.M.U. is bordered by
Bayou Lafourche (Fourchon. E.M.U.), a series of oil
and gas canals (Leeville E.M.U.), Bayou Lafourche
4L again to the southern part of Golden Meadow, then a
series of oil and gas canals and the east boundary
of Catfish Lake and another oil and gas canal unti.1
an intersection with the South Lafourche,levee
(Golden Meadow E.M.U.) then north along the South
Lafourche Levee to the boundary of the Bully Camp
T' M. U.
E.,

197

MAPS IN A LAFOURCHE PARISH CZ_M PROGRAM

PREPARER: Sandi Aymond, Lafourche Parish-Council, PlannirLg Depart-
ment

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: United Gas Pipeline, Columbia Gas Pipeline, Tennessee
Gas Pipeline, spoil banks, uplands, water, brackish
marsh, salt marsh, mangrove, beach

TITLE: South Barataria (E.M.U.)

DATE: 1978

SCALE: 11' = 24,0001

AREA COVERED: The area is bordered on the east by the Jefferson
Parish boundary line running-throuqh Caminada Bay,
Bay Des Ilette, West Champagne Bay, Creole Bay,
Hackberry Bay and Grand Bayou. On the north the
boundary runs through Little Lake and follows the
Jefferson Parish line. On the west, the Clovelly
E.M.U. forms the western boundary south to the
South Lafourche A Boundary (levee) south to the
LA 1 Highway embankment and natural levee (Raccourci
E.M.U.) boundary to the Leeville E.U.U. boundary
to LA 1 embankment (Fourchon E.M.U. boundary). The
southern boundary consists of the LA l.embankment
and'ehenier (Caminada E.M.U. boundary)..

PREPARER: Sandi Aymond, Lafourche Parish Council, Plannine Depart-
ment

FEATURES 7
ILLUSTRATED: Tennessee Pipeline, Southwest Louisiana Canal, L.O.O.P.
Pipeline, spoil banks, uplands. swamp, brackish marsh,
salt marsh, water, mangrove

TITLE: Bayou Pointe-au-Chien (E.M.U.)

DATE: 1978

SCALE: 1" = 24,000f

AREA COVERED:, The upper portion of the coastal zone is on the west
side of Bayou Lafourche. Discrete boundaries include

ULA

198

MAPS IN A LAFOURCHE PARISH CZ114 PROGRAM

LA 24 on the north and Bayou Pointe-au-Chien on
the west and southwest. The eastern boundarv is
contiguous with the Bully Camp E.H.U. and the
Raccourci E.M.U.

PREPARER: Sandi Aymond, Lafourche Parish Council, Planning Depart-
ment

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED.: South Coast Gas Pipeline, United Gas Pipeline,
Lpuiqlana.Highway 24, spoil banks, uplands, swamp,
fresh marsh, brackish marsh, water

TITLE: North Little take (E.M.U.) and Delta Farms (E.M.U.)

DATE: 1978

SCALE: I" = 24,0001

AREA COVERED: North Little Lake (E.-M.U.) - The upper portion of
the coastal zone-is on.the east side-of Bayou
Lafourche. Discrete boundaries include Bayou
Perot on the east, Lake Salvador on the north,
the Delta Farms levee and the South Laf:ourche
Levee system to the west and the Clovelly E.H.U.
and Clovelly Farms E.M.U. and Scully Canal to the
south.

Delta Farms (E.M.U.) - The Delta Firms E.H.U. is
bordered by the west, south, and east by its own
levee system. On the north, the boundary is-the
Intracoastal Waterway.

PREPARER: Sandi Aymond. Lafourche Parish Council, Planning Depart-
ment

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: United Gas Pipeline, Southern Natural Gas Line, spoil
banks, uplands, swamp, fresh marsh, brackish marsh,
water, beach

TIT Leeville (E.M.U.)

DATE: 1978

SCALE: 1" 24,0001

199

MAPS IN A LAFOURCHE PARISH CZM PROGRAM

AREA COVERED: The Leeville E.M.U. encompasses the Leeville Oil
Field and is bounded on the north and the east by
the South-Barataria E.M.U., on the south by the
South Barataria, Fourchon, and Raccourci E.M.U.'s
and on the west by the Raccourci E.M.U. Bayou
'Lafourche bisects the area.

PREPARER: Sandi-Aymond, Lafourche Parish Council, Planning De-
partment

FEATURES
TLOST TED: Bayou Lafourche, Southwestern Louisiana Canal, spoil
banks, uplands, water, salt marsh

TITLE: Fourchon (E.M.U.) and Caminada (E.M.U.)

DATE: 1978

SCALE: 1" 24,000'

AREA COVERED Fourchon (E.M.U.) - This unit is bordered on the
east bV Louisiana Highway 1 and.3090, on the south
by the Gulf of Mexico and on the west by Bayou.
Lafourche and Belle Pass.

Caminada (E.M.U.) - Boundaries on this unit in-elude
Louisiana Highway 1 on the north, the Jefferson
Parish line to the east, Highway 3090 and Pass
Fourchon to the west, and the Gulf of Mexico to the
south.

ymond, Lafourche Parish Council, Planning Depart-
PREPARER: Sandi A*
ment

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Highway 1, Highway 3090, spoil banks, uplands, man- A
grove., salt marsh, beach, water
z-j

TITLE: South Lafourche "All @E.M.U.), Bully Camp (E.M.U.). Golden
Meadow (E.M.U.), and the South Lafourche "C" (E.M.U.)

DATE: 1978

SCALE: 1" 24,0001 Li

1400

MAPS IN A LAFOURCHE PARISH CZM PROGRAM

AREA COVERED: South Lafourche "A" encompasses all the land covered
by the new South Lafourche levee currently under coa,
struction.. The northern bodndarv of this E.M.U.. is
the Intracoastal Waterway. The 'eastern boundary is
the, levee, basically at the 40 Arpent Line and the
Environmental Management Unit of North Little Lake,
Clovelly, Clovelly Farms, and South Barataria.. The'
western boundary is the 14vee and Environmental
Management Units of Golden.Meadow, Raccourci, and
Bully Camp.

Bully Camp (E.M. - The northern boundary of
Bullv Camp is Bayou Blue, the eastern boundary of
Bully Camp is the South Lafourche levee system. The
southern boundary is a series of oil and gas access.
canals and the Raccourci E.M.U. The western boundary
of the E.M.U. is Grand Bayou and the Poiate-au-Chien
E.M.U.

Golden Meadow (E.M.U.) - The eastern boundary of this
E.M.U. is the South Lafourche levee system. The
southern, western, and northern boundaries of the
E.M.U. are a series of canals and the Raccourci E.M.U.
boundary.

South Lafourche "C" (E.M.U.) - The-E.M.U. is bordered
on the north, south,@ and west b3rthe Bully Camp E.K.U.
and on the east bT the South Lafourche."A" E.M.TT. and
the South Lafourche levee.

PREPARER: Sandi Aymond, Lafourche Parish Council, Planning Depart-
ment

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED.: Scullv Canal, Breton Canal, Yankee Canal, South Lafourche
levee., brackish marsh, water, spoil banks, salt marsh.
upland development, pastures, and fresh marsh

TITLE: Clovelly (E.M.U.), Clovelly Farms (E.M.U.2, and South Lafourche
f'B" (E. M. U.

DATE: 1978

SCALE: 1" = 24,0001

AREA COVERED: Clovelly E.M.U. The E.M.U. is bordered on the north
by the Scully Canal, on the west by Clovelly Farms
and the South Lafourche levee, on the southwest by

201

MAPS IN A LAFOURCHE PARISH CZM PROGRAM

the channel of Bayou L'Ours, on the west again by
the Tennessee Gas Pipeline canal, on the south by
unnamed pipeline canal, on the east by a series
of oil field access canals to Little Lake, then
along the Lafourche-Jefferson Parish border through
Little Lake.

Clovelly Farms E.M.U. -*The E.M.U. is bordered on
the north by tHe lly Canal and North Little
Lake E.M.U., on the east and the south by the
Clovelly E.M.U., on the west by the South Lafourche
levee and the South Lafourche "A" E.M.U.

South Lafourche "B" E.M.U. - The E.M.U. is bordered
on the north by the Clovglly.E.M.U., on the eas t by
the Clovelly E.M.U., on the south by the South
Barataria E.M.U., and on the west by the South
Lafourche "A" E.M.U.

PREPARER: Sandi Aymond, Lafourche Parish Council, Planning Depart-
ment A

FEATURES
IEEUSTU L.O.O.P. Clovelly Dome Storage Facility, L.O.O.P.
7A
Pipeline Corridor, Scully Canal, Jefferson-Lafourche .J
Parish line, spoil banks,;brackish,marsh, water, up
land, swamp, fresh marsh, non-wetland artea

TITLE: Mississippi Deltaic Plain Region Habitat Map: individual
maps have various titles as follows: (1978) Golden Meadow,
Bay Courant, Mink Bayou, Larose, Lake Bully Camp, Golden
Meadow Farms, Cut Off, Belle Pass, Calumet Islands.,. Pelican
Pass, Jacko Bay, Timbalier Island, Leeville, Lake Felicity,
Caminada Pass, Bay Tambour, Bay Dosgris, Bay L'Ours, Houma,
Montegut, Bourg, Catahoula Bay, Barataria (1956) Barataria,
-Cut Off, Houma, Jacko Bay, Pelican Pass, Timbalier Island,
Calumet Island, Leeville, Montegut, Bay Dosgris, Bay Tambour, ;mi
Lake Bully Camp, Golden Meadow,1ake Felicity, Bay Courant,
Belle Pass, Bourg, Bay L'Ours., Cataho*ula Bay, Larose, Golden
Meadow Farms, Caminada Pass, Mink Bayou

DATE: 1980

SCALE: 111 24,0001

AREA COVERED: Coastal Zone Area of Lafourche Parish

202

3pq

MAPS IN A LAFOURCHE PARISH CZM PROGRAM

PREPARER: Coastal Environments, Inc. for the U.S. rish and Wildlife
3ervice

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Habitats and water salinity for 1954 and 1978. Over-
lays for USGS 7.5 minute quadrangles.

TITLE: Aerial Photographs, False Color Infra-red

0039 0755 0876 0957 9965
0041 0757 0913 0959 9967
0043 0757 0915 0996 9975
0044 0761 0917 0998 99.77
0046 0870 0919 9957 9979
0048 0872 0953 9961 9981
0050 0874 0955 9963 1000

DATE: 1974 and 1978

SCALE: 1:60,000

AREA COVERED- Entire Parish

PREPARER: NASA/NSTL

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Land use, vegetation, waterbodies, etc.

TITLE: USGS 7.5 minute tor)ographic- quadrangles, various titles

Jacko Bay Lake Point
Timbalier Island Lower Vacherie
Catahoula. Bay Amelia
Gray Lac Des Allemands
Barataria Caminada. Pass
Gibson Montegut
Bay Dosgris Bayou L'Ours
Pelican Pass Bourg
Savoie Bak Courant
Kraemer Houma
Des Allemands- Grand Isle
Gheens Golden Meadow
Labadieville Belle Pass
Bay Tambour Calumet Island
Lake Felicity Bayou Bouef

203

MAPS A LAFOURCHE PARISH CZM PROGRAM

DATE: 1974 and older (Photo revised, 1979)

SCALE 1" = 24,000'

AREA COVERED: Entire Parish

PREPARER: USGS

FEATURES

ILLUSTRATED: Topographic, geographic features, oil and gas field
locations, waterbodies, urban areas, ridges, marsh,
barrier islands, mines, transportation routes, etc.

TITLE Vegetation Map, Locap/L.O.O.P. Pipneline (Plate I, II, III,
IV)

DATE: October, 1978

SCALE 1" = 4,000'

AREA COVERED: St. James, Louisiana to Bay Champagne

PREPARER: Diane Baker, Gary Peterson, Charles Sasser and Bobbie
Young of the Center for Wetland Resources

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Salt marsh, brackish marsh, intermediate marsh, fresh
marsh, open water,swamp forest, shrubs, agriculture,
urban, spoil, pipeline/powerline

TITLE Larose to Golden Meadow Hurricane Protection Project

DATE: October, 1978

SCALE 1" = 24,000'

AREA COVERED: Larose to Golden Meadow

PREPARER: South Lafourche Levee District

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: G.P.M. Levee Alignment

TITLE Projected Shoreline Retreat 1980 2030

204

MAPS IN A LAFOURCHE PARISH CZM PROGRAM

DATE: 1978

SCALE: 3/4" = 400'

AREA COVERED: Fourchon Island

PREPARER: Burk and Associates, Inc.

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Shore-line Retreat from 1980 2030

TITLE: Vegetation Map, Clovelly Marshes

DATE: 1980

SCALE: 2 1/2" = 1 mile

AREA COVERED: Clovelly Marshes

PREPARER: D. Baker, M. Canatella, G. Peterson, C. Sasser,,
M. Robertson, Center for Wetland Resources, L.S.U.,
Baton Rouge, Louisiana

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Intermediate marsh, transition marsh, intermediate
marsh, shrubs, trees, agriculture, spoil banks, pipe-
line route and brine storage area

TITLE.: Louisiana Coastal Resources Atlas, Lafourche, Parish

DATE: 1678

SCALE: 1:125,000 or 1" = 2 miles

AREA COVERED: Lafourche Parish

PREPARER: Burk and Associates, Incorporated, Engineers, Planners,
and Environmental Scientists

FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Biophysical and Cultural Resources of the coastal
region

205

MAPS IN A LAFOURCHE PARISH CZM PROGRAM

TITLE: Offshore Louisiana Oil and Gas Map

DATE: July, 1981

SCALE: 111 = 6 miles

AREA COVERED: Offshore Louisiana

PREPARER: Department of Natural Resources.. Louisiana Geological
Survey

FEATURES
TTED: Oil and gas production, oil and gas production - area
ILLUSTR
not delineated, depleted oil and gas areas, well field,
non-producinq salt dome, oil and gas pipeline, proved
salt dome, structure other than proven salt dome,
secondary recovery and/or pressure maintenance plant

TITLE: Oil and Gas Map of Louisiana

DATE: July, 1981

SCALE: 111 =*6 miles

AREA COVERED:- Louisiana

PREPARER: Department of Natural Resources, Louisiana Geological
Survey
"7)
FEATURES
ILLUSTRATED: Oil and Gas Production, oil and gas production area
not delineated, depleted oil and gas areas, non-pro-
ducing salt dome, structure other than proven salt
dome, proven salt dome, oil and gas pipeline, product
pipeline, well field, gasoline plant, refinery, carbon
black plant, secondary recovery and/or pressure main-
tenance plant

206

-77

ApPendix ii
L. PROCEEDINGS

LAFOURCHE COASTAL ZONE MANAGMI

ADVISORY COMITTEE

M I N U T E S

LAFOURCHE CZM ADVISORY-COMMITTEE

April 29, 1981

The Lafourche CZM Advisory Committee meeting was un-
officialy called to order by Edwin J. Durabb.

Seven (7) members were present.

PRESENT ABSENT
Ted Faigout Robert Juul (excused)
Horace Thibodaux Gregory Terrebonne
Gerald Bordelon Edea Baldwin
Perry Gisclair
Wendell Curole
Carol Adams
Ernest "Lou" Morales

Also present was Edwin J. Durabb-Lafourche Planning Dept.

Members that were not present at the first meeting which
was unofficial, due to lack of quorum, were given CZM
folders.

Introduction
Edwin j. Durabb passed out copies of the Lafourche
Coastal Zone Reports of 1979 and 1980. Also passed out
were copies of the State of Louisiana Final Environmental
Impact Status (F.E.I.S.) of the Coastal Zone program, a
membership list of the Louisiana Coastal Commission, and
a list of work completed to date an the Coastal Zone
program by the Planning Department.

Edwin J. Durabb introduced himself and spoke briefly to
the committee.

Mr. Durabb spoke on the history of the CZM Advisory Com-
mittee and the continuing problem of the lack of quorum at
the meetings. Mr. Durabb also spoke of the Police Jury's
past disinterest in the CZM Advisory Committee and about
the lack of expertise in Coastal matters.

Edwin j. Durabb then advised the committee members that it
is important to attend meetings because they are on the
committee to advise the parish and to add information and
recommend actions in the development of the program:

Mr. Durabb then mentioned that the future role of the
committee is unclear but, may be that of an official
appeals board for the program of implementation once the
Police jury has reviewed and adopted a CZM Ordinance.

Mr. Durabb stated that the committee should became active
in presenting their work to the Police Jury. He also
advised the committee that one of its members should make
the presentation to the Police Jury, not the Planning
Department.

Mr. Durabb advised that the Committee should attempt to
stick to its agenda and that the first priority of the
CZM Advisory Committee should be to set up a management
plan.

208

Committee Organization
On a motion by Gerald Bordelon seconded by Wendell Curole,
Horace Thibodaux was nominated for Chairman. There being
no opposition, he was elected unanimously.

On a motion by Horace Thibodaux seconded by Ted Falgout,
Gerald Bordelon was nominated for Vice-Chairman. There
being no opposition, he was elected unanimously.

Discussed was the possible meeting dates for monthly
meetings. Edwin J. Durabb reminded the committee that
they, under the CZM Contract, must meet monthly. Horace
Thibodaux suggested the 4th Wednesday of each month at
7:00 P.M. as the official meeting date. It was adopted
unanimously. It was suggested that the 1st Wednesday
be an alternate meeting date. It was also adopted
unanimously.

Horace Thibodaux suggested that the meetings be held at
the Port Commission Building. This site was adopted
unanimously. Gerald Bordelon suggested that his house
be used as an alternate meeting site in the event the
Part Commission Building was not available. This alternate
size was adopted unanimously. Horace Thibodaux asked Ted
Falgout to make sure that the Port Commission Building
was available for the Advisory Committee Meetings.

Horace Thibodaux suggested that the meetings be limited
to two (2) hours in length. After discussion the com-
mittee adopted this rule unanimously.

Horace Thibodaux proposed a mandatory attendance rule as
suggested by Edwin J. Durabb: A member missing three (3)
meetings during the year or two (2) consecutive meetings,
without a legitimate excuse, shall be dropped. from the-
Advisory Committee. After discussion, the motion was
adopted unanimously.

Horace Thibodaux entertained a motion to set a quorum
for adoption and reminding of motions. After discussion,
it was moved by Gerald Bordelon seconded by Wendell
Curole, that the quorum for adoption of a motion of six
(6) members and for recinding a motion seven (7) members.

Advisory Committee Directives
After a general discussion on the Coastal Zone Program
the Chairman directed Edwin J. Durabb to write the
following letters to the Department of Natural Resources-
CZM Section:
1) a letter to DNR ascertaining the status of a contract
extension due to the excessiveLy Late start of the CZM
program..
2) a letter to DNR requesting copies of the Sub Contractor
scope of work for the state program for Advisory
Committee Review.

The Chairman, Horace Thibodaux, requested that the advisory
committee be furnished with a copy of the CZM budget for
Lafourche Parish. for the coming year.

Public Awareness
The Chairman of the committee discussed the need for Public
Information dissemination of the CZM program. Edwin J. Durabb
agreed to expand the meeting notification. list and get a press
release completed and distributed about the first meeting of
the advisory committee. Persons notified of the CZM meeting
will include the following:
All CZM Advisory Committee members
All Police Jurors and Prish Administration
The Daily Comet

209

- Lafourche Gazette
- The Houma Courier
- La. DNR CZM Section (Mr. John Glenn)
- Radio Stations, KTIB and KLEB

Minutes of all CZM Citizen Advisory Committee Meetings will
be sent to the Police Jurors of Lafourche Parish as; well as
the CZM Advisory Committee.

A discussion was held about the reports to the Police
Jury. Edwin J. Durabb announced that, in the contract it
mentions that the committee should orally report to the
Police Jury. Mr. Durabb suggested that this be done at
least every three months. This report will be given try
the Chairman or his designated representative. Edwin
Durabb will provide quarterly reports to DNR, that
document everything the CZM Advisory Committee is doing.

it was discussed and decided by the committee that minutes
be typed and transcribed by the Lafourche Planning Department
and copies will be forwarded to the membership.

Elements of the CZM Program
A discussion was held dealing with permits. Edwin J. Durabb
explained that the state has a computer system and will be
able to give Lefourche Parish or any parish the number of
permits, where they are by longitude and latitude and class
of activity. The svstem will be able to cluster them an a
map so one can actually have a complete record on cumulative
impact on a continual basis. The CZM Advisory Committee
will then have access to this data at periodic intervals.

A discussion was held on assembling the goals and objectives
of the CZM Advisory Committee, the perfecting of a Permit
Program and how to run it, Environmental Management: and
where and what is to be done, special areas the committee
may want to designate, and assembly of all information in
a package to bring before the Police Jury to elecit their
comments, criticisms etc.

Other Business
A discussion was held on the extension of the CZM contract
and it was decided that Edwin J. Durabb will write a letter
asking for an extension of the contract date.

Edwin J. Durabb gave a brief report on the Lafourche LANDSAT
Project and how it Interphases with CZM. A discussion
followed.

It was mentioned that the Lafourche Parish Fresh Water
District would like to sell water to various bodies that
belong to the district and a discussion on this topic
followed.

A discussion was held on the Atchafalaya Basin plans and
how they could impact Lafourche.

Being that there was no additional business to discuss it
was motioned by Ted Falgout and seconded by Wendell Curole,
that the meeting be adjourned.

EDWIN J. DURABB
Secretary

210

M I N U T E S

LAFOURCHE CZM ADVISORY COMMITTEE

MAY 27, 1981

The second meeting of the Lafourche CZM Advisory
Committee was called to order by its chairman, Horace
Thibodaux.

Six (6) members were present.

PRESENT ABSENT
Ted Falgout Gregory Terrebonne (excused)
Horace Thibodaux Edia Baldwin
Gerald Bordelon Ernest "Lou" Morales
Perry Gisclair Wendell Curole (excused)
Carrol Adams
Robert Juul

Also present was Edwin J. Durabb - Lafourche Planning
Department, John Davis - Chaiman fo the Terrabonne CZM
Advisory Committee and Vince Fillory - Louisiana Wildlife
and Fisheries.

On a motion by Ted Falgout, seconded by Geral Bordelon,
the April 29, 1981, minutes of the Lafourche CZM Advisory
Committee meeting were approved and accepted. The
motion carried by a vote of 6-0.

John Davis spoke briefly on the Terrabonne CZM Advisory
Committee. Their meetings are usually held in the Court-
house annex at 4:30 p.m. All Lafourche CZM Advisory Com-
mittee members and other attendees of the meeting were
invited to attend the Terrebonne CZM Advisory Committee
meetings.

Discussed was the proposal for a State coastal zone co-
ordinator being drafted to be presented to the Governor.

An informal discussion was then held dealing with the
continuation of state funding for the CZM Program.

A discussion was held regarding the non-attendance and
resume submittal of certain CZM Advisory Committee Members.
The Chairman, Horace Thibodaux, directed Edwin J. Durabb
to draft a letter to Ernest "Lou" Morales and Gregory
Terrebonne requesting that they send resume's to the
Lafourche Parish Council committee for board appointments.
Also, Mr. Durabb is to draft a letter to Ernest "Lou"
Morales, Gregory Terrebonne and Edea Baldwin requesting
that they attend meetings.

Edwin J. Durabb then passed out a series of request letters
written to John Glenn, CZM DNR Coordinator, since March, 1981,
implementing the chairman's request at the April 29, 1981
meeting.

Edwin J. Durabb presented the Environmental Management
Unit (E. M. U.) concept. A discussion followed. On a
motion by Gerald Bordelon, seconded by Perry Gisclair
the concept of Environmental Management Units and the
classification of levels of development of Goals and Objec-
tives and baseline data before finalization and adoption
by the Committee.

211

A discussion was held regarding the development of goals
and objectives for the Parish CZM program. Edwin J.
Durabb passed out a list of Goals and Objectives of
the CZM Advisory Committee program developed by the
Planning Department for the Committee. He then spoke
about them and advised the committee that the goals
and objectives listed are not definite. Mr. Durabb
would like the Advisory Committee to look over the goals
and objectives and comment on them. A final decision
would be made on them at the next meeting.

Edwin j. Durabb also advised the Advisory Committee
that at the next meeting he would have a draft of a CZM
proposed Orfinance prepared for their review.

A brief discussion was held on various bills and reports
being prepared an barrier islands to be presented
before the House Merchant Marines Committee that might
affect Lafourche Parish.

Horace Thibodaux presented a copy of an informative
newsletter to the committee and directed Edwin J. Durabb
to contact Delores Clark, who is with the Office of
Coastal Zone Management in Washington, and advise her
that the CZM Advisory Committee Mmbers would like to
be placed on their mailing list for the newsletter.

Edwin J. Durabb then spoke briefly on the NACO workshop
and that Lafourche Parish will be written up in the
NACO newsletter for participating In it via the Landsat
demonstration project for the Coastal Zone of the Parish.

Mr. Durabb also explained that the Parish would soon be
receiving "U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service habitat maps
of the Coastal Zone of Lafourche Parish. These maps will
be of great help in establishing baseline information and
Goals and Objectives for the Parish Environmental Manage-
ment Units.

Being that there was no additional business to discuss
it was motioned by Ted Falgout and seconded by Gerald
Bardelon, that the meeting be adjourned.

EDWIN J. DURABB, SECRETARY

-T

212

M I N U T E S

LAFOURCHE CZM ADVISORY

July 29, 1981

The third meeting of the lafourche CZM Advisory Com-
mittee was called to order by it's chairman, Horace
Thibodaux.

Seven (7) members were present.

PRESENT ABSENT
Ted Falgout Perry Gisclair
Horace Thibodaux Edea Baldwin
Gerald Bordelon
Carrol Adams
Robert Juul
Gregory Terrebonne
Windell Curole

Also present was Ed Durabb - Lafourche Planning Cent.

On a motion by Windell Curole and seconded by Ted Falgout,
the May 27, 1981 minutes of the Lafourche CZM Advisory
Committee meeting were approved and accepted. The motion
carried by a vote of 7-0.

The committee formally accepted Lou Morales resignation
from the CZM Advisory Committee.

On a motion by Ted Falgout and seconded by Gerald Bordelon,
Edea Baldwin was voted off the committee by a vote of 7-0.
This move was made due to lack of attendance and interest.

Gerald Bordelon made a motion which was seconded by Ted
Falgout to take under advisement the replacement of Lou
Morales and Edea Baldwin. The motion carried by a vote
of 7-0.

A motion was made by Robert Juul and seconded by Ted
Falgout to nominate as a replacement Vince Guillory of
Wildlife and Fisheries and also, Skip Hafder. These
nominees. are to be advised to submit a resume to the
Advisory Committee for forwarding to the committee for
board appointments. The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.

Ed Durabb distributed an article from the Morning Advocate
and the latest coastal use status report (July 1 through
the 15) for the Committee's review.

Mr. Durabb displayed habitat maps overlay extracts of
Parish land loss developed by the Planning Department from
the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service habitat maps and ex-
plained that he would have a complete land cover map by
November from the Landsat Program.

The adoption of the goals and objectives statement presented
to the committee at the May meeting was discussed. On a
motion by Gerald Bordelon and seconded by Ted Falgout, the
committee agreed to include mitigation the list of goals

213

and objectives and also to adopt the goals and objectives.
The motion carried by a vote of 7-0.

Ed Durabb informed the committee of the allocation of
State funds for the Planning Department to develop a model
computer base permit systam in addition to the Landsat
Demonstration Project Already Lin progress.

A lengthy discussion was held on "mitigation" as part of
the coastal zone plan. Specifically, there was concern
with the effectiveness of turbidity curtains to protect
Oyster Beds. Also, discussed was whether or not the cam-
mittee Agrees with State policies on mitigation. Ed
Durabb was requested by the committee to write a letter
to the State CZM CoordInator requesting information on the
program. Also, the committee asks that this letter contain
several questions on mitigatiom.

Mr. Durabb stated that the state legal staff from the
Department of Natural Resources will give their review
of the Lafourche CZM draft ordinance shortly. Mr. Durabb
explained that he should have this review at the next
meeting. The committee was asked by mr. Durabb to review
the CZM draft ordinance with them section by section at the
next meeting.

Ed Durabb stated that he will have prepared a chart to
show the permit process and time line for permits under
the proposed ordinance.

The next topic of discussion was the sand dredging opera-
tions Environmental impact Statement that proposed sand
mining in the Fourchon area. The committee considered:

1. whether or not sand dredging operations should be
allowed in the area.

2. Whether or not sand dredging should be allowed on
the Cheniere ridges where it has taken place previously
as an Alternative to dredging in the marshes.

3. Whether or not sand mining should be allowed on other
cheniere ridges in the area.

4. The environmental and economic consequences of taking
large amounts of sand from this area as o-posed to
trucking it from Hahnville.

5. The value of the cheniere ridges in the CZM program.

On a motion by Gerald Bordelon and seconded-by Gregory
Terrebonne, the committee decided to direct Ed Durabb to
compose a letter addressed to the Lafourche Parish Council
making them aware of the problems that exist concerning
dredging sand in the Cheniere area, between Grand isle
and Port Fourchon and asking their comment on the issue.
This motion carried by a vote of 7-O.

Being that there was no additional business to discuss,
it was motioned by Ted Falgout and seconded by Windell
Curole, that the meeting be adjourned.

ED DURABB, SECRETARY

214

M I N U T E S

LAFOURCHE CZM ADVISORY

August 29, 1981

The fifth meeting of the Lafourche CZM Advisory Committee
was called to order by its chairman, Horace Thibodaux.

There were five (5) members present:

PRESENT ANSENT

Perry Gisclair Ted Falgout - Excused
Horace Thibodaux Gerald Bordelon - Excused
Caroll Adams Robert Juul
Gregory Terrebonne
Windell curale

Also present at this meeting were Ed Durabb - Lafourche
Parish Planning Department and Marcissa Mayet.

OLD BUSINESS: MINUTES

On a motion by Perry Gisclair, seconded by Windell Curale,
the minutes of the july meeting of the Lafourche CZM Advisory
Committee meeting were accepted unanimously.

LETTER ON SAND DREDGING:

An inquiry was made by Perry Gisclair as to the disposition
of the letter of attention on the dredging operations near
Part Fourchon. Ed Durabb stated that the latter to the
Council as approved. by the Advisory Committee was sent oUt
to the Council as per the instructions frOM the Advisory
Committee. Also, Mr. Durabb stated that his department
had issued comments on that Letter to the Parish President
upon his request.

DIRECTIVES TO SECRETARY:

The chairman, Horace Thibodaux requested that In the future,
persons who have called in with a Legitimate excuse as to
why they cannot attend a meeting be listed as excused an the
official minutes of that meeting. Ed Durabb stated that
this change would appear in the official minutes of the
August meeting.

MEMBERSHIP DISCUSSION:

Ed Durabb reported to the committee that he had received a
resume from Vince Guillory regarding the filling of one of
the vacancies an the CZM committee as a result of the dropping
of Edea Baldwin and the rest nation of Lou Morales. Mr.
Durabb stated that he had sent the resume as well as a Letter
of explanation to the Council Committee on Board appointments
forr their consideration.

Perry Gisclair reminded the committee that originally, the
Parish Council had allowed individual councilmen from the
South Lafourche area to nominate advisory Committee members.
He suggested that Ed Durabb notify the councilmen of vacancies
so that they may nominate new members if they wish to serve
on the committee. Ed Durabb replied that he had spoken with

215

the councilmen from South Lafourche and informed them that
they were able to submit new names for the committee.

Gregory Terrabonne brought to the committee's attention that
there was an error in the membership tally mailed to the
committee in their last packet. Ed Durabb indicated that
the change would be made for the next meeting.

NEW BUSINESS: REVIEW OF NEW ADDITIONS TO THE GOALS AND
OBJECTIVES

Ed Durabb presented the changes in the Parish Goals and
Objectives that he had made to the committee for their review.
These changes Included sectionS on mitigation and one new
goals. All changes were blocked off for easy location in
the packet.

Horace Thibodaux brought up a question regarding the
function of the advisory commitee as stated in the goals and
objectives. Ed Durabb stated that this advisory committee
should have a role as a review as well. as advisory committee.
Mr. Durabb said that he feels that the committee can play a
role in all functions of the CZM Permit process.

Horace Thibodaux pointed out a discrepancy in the use of the
term "advisory committee" and "review board". The committee
decided that the proper name should probably be "CZM Review
Board". A final decision was not made of this however.

Mr. Durabb called the committee's attention to the new goal
statement recently added to the Parish goals and objectives
package. we explained the CZM requirements that lea to the
addition of this statement to the committee.

Referring to the new goal, Horace Thibodaux brought up the
problem of consistency of the Lafourche CZM Program with
adjoining parishes as required under this program. Ed
Durabb responded that he has made initial contacts with
the adjoining parishes, but that it will be difficult to
establish consistency provisions until the other parishes
substantially complete their Plans.

After further discussion an goal #8, the committee decided
to table its acceptance to allow everyone more time to
review and absorb its implications to the parish program.
The committee die., however, accent the changes made by
Ed Durabb in the rest of the goals and Objectives package
unanimouslY.

PARISH CZM ORDINANCE: STATE REVIEW

Ed Durabb presented the committee with copies of the official
State review of the Lafourche CZM Ordinance. Copies of the
revised ordinance (in response to the State review)were
also presented to the committee. Mr. Durabb detailed some of
the changes that he made in the ordinance in terminology,
additions and deletions of sections, and the adjustment of
the fee schedule for permit review. The problem of compen-
sation for review of permits of "state concern" was discussed
extensively by the committee. The State does not now allow
the parish to charge a fee for this review. Only uses
"local concern" are amenable to permit fees charged by the
parish. The committee discussed several alternatives to
recoup some expenses for review of uses of state concern as
well as local concern. Ed Durabb stressed the point that in
use; of state concern, the expense of permit investigation
would "all upon the state. The parish program with its
particular goals and objectives and policies for the area in
question would dictate parish comments as to the advisability
of the project and the mitigation required.

216

COMMITTEE REVIEW OF 2nd DRAFT CZM ORDINANCE:

Ed Durabb presented the committee with a 2nd draft of a
proposed CZM Ordinance for their review. The committee
reviewed the ordinance section by section.

ARTICLE 1 - Committee recommends no chanhe
ARTICLE 2 - Committee recommends no change
ARTICLE 3 - Definition #3 - Horace Thibodaux recommends
that the committe request the State to let
the parish know exactly where the CZM boundary
in Lafourche Parish is
Definition #4 - Changes to "Coastal Zone.
Review Board" from CZM Advisory Committee

ARTICLE 4 - Committee recommends no change. A question
was raised as to the definition or "single
family residence" or "camp". Ed Durabb
explained the State position on camp construction
ARTICLE 5 - Change "Advisory Committee" to "Review Board"
Change "2 year term" to "at the pleasure of
the Parish Council" when referring to the terms
of the Advisory Committee in Section I

Section 2 - change "Advisory Committee" to
"review board"

Section 3 - Change "Advisory Committee" to
"review board"

Section 4 - Add "local Coastal Zone Manage-
ment, Plan on #2

Delete #3 because of legal problems associated
with access to public property

Redefine "watercourse' in definitions section

Section 5 - Horace Thibodaux raised the, question.
of enforcement. Ed Durabb explained that the
term "enforced" did not apply t o actUal arrest
powers but merely to the requirement of compliance
with the provisions of the ordinance. Committee
recommends no change.
ARTICLE - 6 Section 1 - Committee recommends no change

Section 2 - #2 Change domicile of Parish
Administrator to "the facility designated by
the Parish Council in the Coastal Zone", to-
indicate the Advisory Committee's wishes as to
where the CZM office be located

Section 3 - Committee recommends no change

Ed Durabb recommended to the Committee that the entire next
meeting be devoted to the ordinance. Horace Thibodaux
reqyested that a flow chart be. developed to show the committee
how the permit process works.

It was moved by Perry Gisclair, seconded by Windell Curola that
the meeting be adjourned. The motion carried unanimously.

Edwin J. Durabb
Secretary

217

The Coastal Zone Management

Advisory Committee Minutes

September 30, 1981

In the absence of the chairman and vice Chairman, Ted Falgout acting
chairman called the meeting To order.

The following members were in attendance:

Present Absent

Windell Curole Gerald Bordelon - Excused
Perry Gisclair Horace Thibodaux - Excused
Dino Cheramie Robert Juul
Ted Falgout
Gregory Terrabonne

Also in attendance was Edwin J. Durabb of the Lafourche Parish Council
Planning Department.

Membership Discussion

The first item of business was the introduction of Mr. Dino Cheramie,
the new CZM Advisory Committee member. The appointment of Mr. Dino
Cheranie was made by Oris "Jay" Cheramie, Jr., who was not present
to make Mr. Cheramie's introduction. Mr. Dino Cheramie was questioned
concerning his employment and the location of his residence. Mr. Dino
Cheramie informed the committee that he is employed at Cheramie Inc.
of Golden Meadow and that he resides in Galliano, Louisiana.

The next item for discussion was in reference to Mr. Vince Guillory
and his appointment to the committee. In this discussion, Perry Gisclair
questioned what steps had been taken in regards to Mr. Guillory.
Ed Durabb informed the committee that he had sent Mr. Guillory's resume
along with a letter to the Committee of Board Appointments. Perry
Gisclair told the committee that he had attended the Committee of
Board Appointments meeting and was confused as to why two resumes
were submitted for one opening. Ed Durabb told the committee that ten
people were on the committee and that either of two options could be
taken - The Council could niminate another person for the committee or
the committee could drop the total number to nine. If the number was
left at ten, there would be two openings on the committee. Ed Durabb
told the committee that he had been notified of only one appointment
to the CZM committee by the Council Committee for Board Appointments.

Mr. Perry Gisclair said that according to the agenda, there was only
one vacancy that existed and that was for Edia Baldwin. There was no
mention of Mr. Lou Morales' resignation on the agenda.

Mr. Perry Gisclair also said that according to the minutes, a letter
would be sent to Mr. Jay Cheramie. Ed Durabb was informed by Perry
Gisclair that there was no letter sent to Mr. Jay Cheramie.

Mr. Ed Durabb informed the committee that the letter had been sent to
the Committee of Board Appointments, and that he had spoken to Jay
Cheramie personally concerning the appointment of someone to the
committee. Ed Durabb told the committee that he had informed Jay
Cheramie that a vacancy did exist and told Mr. Cheramie that he could
make an appointment.

Mr. Ed Durabb stated that a when the letter was sent to the Committee
of Board Appointment, it was stated that there were two vacancies. In
this letter, a copy of Mr. Guillory's resume was included.

218

Mr. Perry Gisclair asked that another letter be sent advising the
committee of Lou Morales' resignation, that a vacancy existed, and
that the committee recomments Mr. Vince Guillory for the appointment.

Mr. Dino Cheramie was asked to familiarize himself with past committee
CZM work so that he could become a contributing member by the next
meeting.

The next item for discussion was the review and acceptance of the
minutes of the August meeting. All members were asked if there were
additions or corrections to the minutes of the last meeting. It was
moved that the minutes be approved. The motion was made by Windell
Curole and seconded by Perry Gisclair. The motion was unanimously
accepted.

The report of the planning department on membership and attendance
roster changes was nest for discussion. Ted Falgout asked if Ed Durabb
had anything further to add on the membership roster. Ed Durabb reminded
the committee of Horace Thibodaux's request that it be indicated on the
minutes when people called in with an excuse. Mr. Ed Durabb pointed
out to the committee that it had been done. Ed Durabb also said that
the error was corrected on the attendance roster and that the next
roster would reflect these changes.

CZM Program Requirements

Ed Durabb told the committee that, as part of our CZM program documen-
tation, the committee needs to document state and federal activitities
in the coastal zone. The major federal and/or state activities in
the Lafourche Coastal Zone ar: Port Fourchon, South Lafourche Levee
District, and the Louisiana Offshore Oil Port.

Ed Durabb stated that information is needed on the status of the levee
projects. Ed Durabb is in particular need of maps to determine
the levee alignment.

Ed Durabb also stated that the same information is need for the Port
Fourchon area.Ed Durabb told the committee that he has the develop-
ment plan for 1974, but that is all the information he has. Ed Durabb
told the committee he is looking for information on what is there,
what is proposed for the next year or so and also for a map of the
area.

Ted Falgout informed Ed Durabb that he has the information on Port
Fourchon on a plat. Ed Durabb tod the committee that he will assemble
all the information provided to him on the Port Fourchon, and South
Lafourche Levee system in order to document the current and future
status of these projects for the CZM plan.

Ed Durabb then asked who could be contracted at LOOP to get some
information on the projects. Questions were brought up as to what
information would be needed. Ed Durabb informed the committee that
he needs information on facilities, what LOOP intends to build in the
future, basically a description of the project itself - that is,
what is in place now. Ed Durabb was told that he could possibly
get in touch with Mr. Dan Deatia, but that the operation was separated
into two or three offices. One of those offices is Located in Port
Fourchon. The main office is located in Harvey.

Ed Durabb was told the call the LOOP Operations Center and find out
who could be of assistance. Ed Durabb asked for the members to mail
whatever information they have on the projects within a month so he
would be able to assemble the information into a concise format for
the CZM program.

Other Business

Ed Durabb told the committee that John Glenn who is in charge of
Parish Programs has taken another job and that his position has not
been filled. Before his departure, he and Ed Durabb discussed what
he was planning to do with the program, and what the Advisory Committee
was doing. John Glenn recommended that instead of pursuing the current
course regarding the goals and objectives and policies on parish-wide
basis that the committee should hold off and to the same thing

219

Environmental Unit by Environmental Unit thus tailoring the goals
and objectives to each specific Environmental Fair. According to
Ed Durabb, this is a logical way to handle it.

After assembling Environmental Unit descriptions, the committee
try to write goals and objectives for each unit under study. The
committee can then talk about the policies in each particular unit.

Mr. Ed Durabb then proceeded to distribute a letter from John Glenn
to demonstrate potential policies that could be used in our CZM
Program. Ed Durabb reminded the committee that they had directed
him to ask John Glenn questions. This letter also answered questions
posed by the committee regarding other management policies which had
been raised previously.

Related Ordinances to the CZM Program

Ed Durabb told the committee that he looked through the Lafourche Code
of Ordinances and circled some existing Parish Ordinances that had
some relation to the CZM Program - basically they included the flood
insurance program and the solid waste regulations. The information
that was distributed to the committee summarizes what is currently in
force in the parish.

Goals and Objectives

Ed Durabb said that the committee could approve the goals and objec-
tives minus all the policies and, at the next meeting he would bring
in some E.M.U. descriptions, maps, and look at each one of them to see
where it is, what is there, and make a decision as to what kind of
policies are needed there.
CZM Ordinance
Ed Durabb then reminded the committee that changes were made in the
Draft CZM Ordinance Articles 1-5 at the last meeting and also
informed the committee that the corrections were included in the
minutes of the last meeting.

Ed Durabb then distributed corrected copies of Articles 1-6 with
the changes that the committee had agreed upon at the last meeting.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that the remainder of the meeting
would be devoted to the ordinances in order to finish the discussion
and make any changes that the committee feels are necessary and to
show how the permit system is designed to flow.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that before discussing the ordinance
that discussion would be held on the permitting system. Ed Durabb
then proceeded to distribute a permitting flow chart. Ed Durabb
informed the committee that an extra sheet was included in the packet
to show the time frames for these processes. Ed Durabb began the
explanation as to how the permit process would work in regards to
"issues fo local concern" as well as "issues of state concern". Ed
Durabb explained the processes involved in determining whether the
permit is of local or state concern to the final permit decision.
Ed Durabb also discussed the time frames for each of the steps in
the permit flow chart process.

The next item for discussion was the review of the second draft
of the Coastal Zone Management Ordinance Articles 7-17. Ed Durabb
reminded the committee that they had been mailed the second draft of
this Ordinance.

Ed Durabb proceeded to discuss the ordinance to determine if any
changes needed to be made in the context.

The following is a list of changes to made in the CZM Ordinance:

Article VII - Section 1 - no change
Section 2 - (1)change CZM Advisory Committee to
CZM Review Board
(2)no change
(3)change CZM Advisory Committee to
CZM Review Board

220

(a)needs to add "within the specified
time period"
change CZM Advisory Committee to CZM
Review Board
change "The Parish Council may override
a coastal use permit" to "The parish
Council may override a coastal use
recommendation"
(5)change "The Parish Council may over-
ride a coastal use permit" to "The Paris
Council may override a coastal use
recommendation"

Section 3-no change
Section 4-no change
Section 5-no change
Section 6-no change

Article VIII- No changes

Article X- no changes
Article XI- no changes
Article XII- no changes
Article XIII-Section 1- no changes

Article XIV- Section 1- no changes
Section 2- no changes
Section 3- change CZM Advisory Committee to CZM
Review Board
change "such petitions should" to "such
petitions shall"
Section 4- change "in no case should" to "in no
case shall"
Article XV- no changes
Article XVI no changes
Article XVII no changes

Ed Durabb stated that he will clarify passages on recommendations
regarding the Council and make sure the passages specifies "within
the time period."

Ed Durabb informed the committee, that as part of the CZM plan,
that he is gathering information on demographic, economic, social,
and employment information about coastal zone and will give the
information at the next meeting.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that the E.M.U.'s would be one of
the topics of discussion for the next meeting.

Landsat Program

Ed Durabb gave a report on the status of the LANDSAT Program to the
committee. He informed the committee that he is in the process of
doing classifications and once the information is gathered, the
information he will provide the group with concise figures on 1980 and
1974 data. Mr. Ed Durabb told the committee that he is gathering
information that will give comparative changes. The information will
show the landscape of each E.W.U. and will also show where land losses
have occurred. LSU will also assist with making film off screens.

The subject then changed to the Ordinance with Ed Durabb informing
the committee about steps to be taken by the jury in passing the
Ordinance. Ed Durabb also informed the committee that the Jury must
pass the Ordinance and adopt the whole package in the form of
resclusions. The committee will then have an ordinance, goals and
objectives, E.M.U.'s, as well as social and economic data to back up
their management plan.

221

Ed Durabb told the committee that he will try to get all the
information concerning the policies and the ordinance to the
committee before the next meeting.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that at the next meeting the
ordinance would be finished and Ed Durabb also told
the committee that he would allow Horace Thibodaux to make his
comments in writing. After the discussion of Horace Thibodaux's
comments, the Committee would decide if the Ordinance would be
adopted.
Ted Falgout informed the committee about a conference that would
be held at LSU on October 5-6 on coastal erosion. Ed Durabb asked
the committee to provide him with the information that would be
discussed at the conference.

Ed Durabb also told the committee about the possibility of arranging
a demonstration for the CZM Committee at LSU on the various aspects
of the LANDSAT Program.

With no further business, the motion for adjournment was made by
Ted Falgout, seconded by Perry Gisclair.

Edwin J. Durabb
Planning Director

222

MINUTES

CZM ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

October 28, 1981

The eighth meeting of the Coastal Zone Management Advisory
Committee was called to order by its Chairman, Horace Thibodaux.

The following members were in attendance for this meeting:

Present Absent

Ted Falgout Gerald Bordelon - Excused
Horace Thibodaux Robert Juul
Windell Curole Gregory Terrabonne
Perry Gisclair
Dino Cheramie
Caroll Adams

Also present for this meeting was Ed Durabb of the LaFourche
Parish Planning Department and Colley Charpenter of the Daily
Comet.

The first item of business for discussion was the review and
acceptance of the minutes of the last CZM Meeting.

Horace Thibodaux entertained a notion to accept the minutes of the
meeting of September 30, 1981. Mr. Perry Gisclair moved that the
minutes be accepted. Mr. Ted Falgout seconded the motion. The
motion carried unanimously.

The next item for discussion was the report to the CZM Committee on
the vacancy an the CZM Committee. Ed Durabb informed the committee
that he had sent a memo to the Committee of Board Appointments,
which included Vince Guillory's resume.

Mr. Perry Gisclair informed the committee that the memo along with
the resume had been received and that Mr.Guillory's appointment
was scheduled to appear on the next Committee of Board Appointments
agenda.

Next for discussion was the final acceptance of Articles 7 - 17 of
the CZM Ordinance. Ed Durabb reminded the committee that they had
gone through these Articles at the last CZM Meeting. Ed Durabb
also distributed revised copies of Articles 1 - 6 of the CZM
Ordinance and also the copies of Articles 7 - 17, with the requested
changes, to the CZM Advisory Committee members.

Ed Durabb asked if all committee members decide that the ordinance
is satisfactory, that the committee use it as an initial draft, and
send this draft to the District Attorney's Office and also to the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources to get final approval to
insure that the ordinance meets all local and state requirements.

The members asked if they had any questions or comments to make
regarding the ordinance.

There being no further discussion or changes in the ordinance,
Horace Thibodaux made a motion to accept Articles 7 -17 of the
Coastal Zone Management Ordinance. The motion to accept was
seconded by Ted Falgout. With no discussion, the motion carried
unanimously.

The next item for discussion was the final acceptance of the
entire CZM Ordinance. Ed Durabb reminded the committee that Articles
1-6 had already been accepted at the -previous meeting.

223

Horace Thibodaux entertained a motion to accept the entire
Ordinance. Ted Falgout moved to accept the Lafourche Parish
Coastal Zone Management Ordinance - third draft as presented
to the Advisory Committee. The motion to accept the ordinance
was seconded by Wiindell. There being no discussion,
the motion carried unanimously.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that his next move is to submit
a draft copy to Louisiana Department of Natural Resources and
also to the District Attorney. is told the committee that he
would include a letter of transmittal with the ordinance but
would deliver the ordinance personally.

Under new business., the first item for discussion was the
introduction to the Goals and Objectives for the CBM Program and
how they relate to the Environmental Management Units.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that he had hand-cuts which would
be mailed to all members within a few days.

Discussion then followed in regards to meetings between John Glenn
and Ed Durabb in reference to the goals and objectives , in which Mr.
John Glenn suggested setting policies for each E.M.J. thus tailoring
the specific policies for specific areas of the Environmental Manage-
ment Unit rather than attempting to draft Policies "parish-wide".

Ed Durabb informed the committee that he had redrafted goals and
objectives and how the goals and objectives relate to the E.M.U.
concept.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that he had began work an the
Pointe-Au-Chien E.M.U. and was providing desctictive information,
which had come from previous CBH reports, that the had derived goals and
objectives and policies specifically for the Pointe-Au-Chien E.M.U.

Ed Durabb then proceeded to present extensive information on the
Pointe-Au-Chien E.M.U. Wildlife Management Area in relation to what areas
require CZM permits, in relation to saltwater intrusion, and also
in relation to color coding of land cover from habitat maps.

Ed Durabb asked that, as members review his suggested policies, that
they point out to the committee if they see how information in the
Policies can be improved.

General discussion continued with Ed Durabb telling committee members
that they would see similar information for every E.M.U. at future
meetings.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that he had included goals and ob-
jectives, and policies for the, Pointe-Au-Chien E.M.U. and then
reviewed them. He also distributed Information packets on this E.M.C.
to the committee.

Ed Durabb asked that all members read the information which had been
distributed to them and make any comments necessary to improve the
management policies.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that no final decision was needed
at the meeting tonight and that be would like all members to review
information and adopt the report at the next CEM meeting.

Discussion then continued on the location of various pipelines in
the Pointe-Au-Chien Wildlife Management Area. United Gas Pipeline
and Southern Pipeline Canels were identified by the Advisory
Committee, and Ed Durabb indicated that he would
cover map accordingly.

Ted Durabb showed the committee aerial photographs that illustrated
marsh deterioration in the Pointe-Au-Chien Wildlife management Area.

Windell Curole informed the committee that he would send information
as to the names of the various canals, that were shown on habitat
maps, to Ed Durabb.

224

Ed Durabb informed the committee that he included oil and
gas board road conditions as policies, which are the actual
conditions that the Louisiana Department Of Natural Resources,
puts on board roads for drilling acitivities.

Ed Durabb asked members to send specific policies for specific
areas to him on the E.M.U. if they could think of any.

Extensive discussion then began on the allocation of $38 million
dollars by the Louisiana State legislature for the various
parishes in: the coastal zone for the various
combat coastal erosion.

Ed Durabb tie committee that he would like to work with
St. Charles and Jefferson Parishes build flood gates along the
Mississippi River, have a canal dug, to the, back of the swamp, and
let freshwater enter into the Baratar a Basta as a measure to
stop land loss in the Barataria Basin. This project was not
included in the proposals to the legislature.

Various members of the committee expressed their concerns as to
-whether the projects to be funded under the state coastal erosion
program would prove to be the most beneficial to the coastal areas.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that there was no coordinated
effort to determine how the money was to be allocated for
by the state legislature as far as he knew.

Committee members asked If a letter could be drafted to the senators,
representatives, to the Governor, an& also to the Terrebonne Parish
CEM Committee in order to inform these persons as to the views of
the Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee
in reference, to the allocation of money by the state legislature for
the funding of projects to combat-coastal erosion.

Further discussion was held relative to potential projects that would
be, the State. Coastal erosions bill in Lafourche Parish.

Horace Thibodaux asked Ed Durabb letter to the senators,
representatives, and to the Governor, on behalf of the Advisory
Committee.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that he would send draft letters
to committee members, for their approval.

Horace Thibodaux informed the committee that he would probably
be going to Baton Rouge attend the, sessions and would give input
into allocations for funding of projects.

There being no further business, Eindell Curole moved to adjourn
he meeting. The notion was seconded by Ted Falgout. The motion
carried unanimously.

225

MINUTES
LAFOURCH CZM ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

January 20, 1982

The first meeting of 1982 was called to order by its chairman,
Horace Thibodaux.

The following members are in attendance:

Present Absent

Horace Thibodaux Dino Cheramie
Ted Falqgout Gerald Bordelon (called in)
Windell Curole Robert Juul (resigned)
Perry Gisclair. Gregory Terrebonne (resigned)
Caroll Adams

Also present were Betty Haw representing the Sierra Club; Ed Durabb
of the Lafourche Parish Council; and Kim Scott from Radio Station
KLEE.

The first order of business was the acceptance of the minutes of
the October 28, 1981 meeting of the CZM Advisory Committee.

Horace Thibodaux entertained a motion to accept the minutes of the
October 28, 1981 meeting of the CZM Advisory Committee. The motion
was made by Perry Gisclair and seconded by Ted Falgout. Motion carried.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that the whole meeting would be
devoted to Environmental Management Units.

The first management unit for discussion was the Pointe-au-chien
Wildlife Management Unit.

Ed Durabb informed members that once the Pointe-au-chien E.M.U.
can be reviewed and adopted, then the parish can begin to comment
an Coastal Management Section permits with more validity. Ed Durabb
reminded the committee that even though the parish does not have
a coastal zone program, the Parish will still have some voice in
reference to comments for coastal use permits.

Ted Falgout moved that the committee approve the Pointe-au-chien
wildlife management Unit. The motion was seconded by Caroll Adams.
The motion carried.

Ted Falgout asked if Ed Durabb had superimposed on maps where the
wildlife management unit areas would be located. Ed Durabb informed
the committee members that the wildlife management areas were not
included on the maps as of yet, but would be included on the maps
in the future.

Ed Durabb informed the committee members that he would met the
boundaries for the wildlife management units drawn on the maps as
soon as he gets the information.

Ed Durabb informed the committee members that the information would
be included on the map for the next meeting.

Ed Durabb then informed the committee members that he had two other
E.M.U.'s, Delta Farms and North Little Lake, which had not been
approved as of yet by the comittee members. He informed the committee
members that he had infra-red photographs of the areas which the
committee could study.

226

The first of these E.M.U's for discussion was North Little Lake.
In reference to this E.M.U., Ed Durabb informed the committee
members that this area was not terribly cut up as of yet, accord-
ing to the habitat map of 1978. Ed Durabb pointed out and sectioned
off areas which had experienced intensive oil and gas activity.
He informed committee members that he had set specific policies
for this area in order to minimize the effects of channelization.

Ed Durabb informed the committee members that these policies have
been sent to the state to Joel Lindsey's people and they were
pleased with the information and wanted to know when the plan would
be completed.

Ed Durabb reminded the committee that they won't have control over
many of the Coastal Management Section permits but would have
comment power that would serve as back-up for the State.

The next E.M.U. for discussion was Delta Farms. Ed Durabb informed
the committee members about the make-up of this E.M.U. and his
recommendations emphasizing recreation potential in the E.M.U.

Ed Durabb asked the committee members for feedback on the suggested
policies or other information which had been given to the committee
members on the E.M.U.'s

General discussion was held by the committee-members in reference to
the Delta Farms E.M.U., particulary in reference to the environ-
mental make-up of this E.M.U.

Discussion was held in reference to the major pipelines and some
of the locations of pipelines and canals in the Delta Farms E.M.U.

Committee members identified the Texas Eastern Pipeline on the map
of the Delta Farms E.M.U.

Ed Durabb informed the committee members that Windell Curole has
a list of pipelines that cross the levees and the list should in-
clude many of the pipelines in the E.M.U. that were up for discussion.

Members asked that all pipelines be identified on the map of the
E.M.U.'s.

Horace Thibodaux said in reference to waterways, that it may be
a project to consider doing research to try to make a determination
to put names on particular waterways on maps for documentation
purposes for the future.

Horace Thibodaux entertained a motion to accept the North Little
Lake and Delta Farms E.M.U.'s. The motion was made by Ted Falgout
and seconded by Windell Curole. The motion carried unanimously.

Ed Durabb then informed the committee members that he had two other
E.M.U.'s for the committee's discussion.

Ed Durabb presented information on the make-up of the Fourchon E.M.U.
and identified color shadings of various land cover of Fourchon.

Ed Durabb informed the committee members that this area has more
stringent policies and descriptions because of the environmental
sensitivity and importance of this E.M.U.

The next item for discussion was Caminada E.M.U. Ed Durabb informed
the committee members that he especially wanted them to study this
E.M.U. because it was more restrictive than other E.M.U.'s.

Discussion was held in relation to pipeline corridors in the E.M.U.
Members expressed the need to have the pipelines labeled in this
E.M.U.

After this discussion committee members asked if they could delay
on the approval of the Caminada and Fourchon E.M.U.'s for further
study of this information.

227

Ed Durabb informed the committee members that he would go through
maps from the E.M.U.'s that have been approved by the committee
and label all the pipelines.

Ted Falgout informed the committee members that he would like to
look into the sand dredging operations in the Caminada E.M.U. to
see if they are approved operations.

The committee discussed the extent and validity of sand dredging
operations as well as what types of uses would fall under state
or local jurisdiction in this E.M.U.

In general discussion of the E.M.U.'s under study, Horace Thibodaux
felt that a general statement should be included in the policies
about the requirements of sewerage and solid waste disposal in
the E.M.U.'s.

General discussion by the committee members was then field on other
policies of the Caminada. E.M.U.

The next item for discussion was the replacement of two members on
the CZM committee. Ed Durabb informed the committee members that
Vince Guillory had submitted a resume to the committee but that
he was unaware of the disposition of the appointment of Mr. Guillory.

Members of the committee asked Ed Durabb to check on the status of
the resume and resubmit it to the Committee of Board Appointments.

Perry Gisclair informed committee members that he felt that it would
be common courtesy to submit a letter to the juror of the district
and ask him to submit a name for the vacancy on the CZM Committee.

General discussion continued on this matter. Perry Gisclair in-
formed the committee members of the status of Vince Guillory's resume,
to the best of his knowledge.

Next for discussion was the possibility of the permit committee re-
viewing coastal use permits. Ed Durabb informed the committee of
the difficulty of instituting Coastal Management permit review
before the program is in place. Toward the end of program develop-
ment, the committee will be informed and be brought into the process.

Horace Thibodaux also informed the committee that they need coordi-
nation with local adjoining parishes on the CZM Program. Ed Durabb
said that he would be meeting with Martha Landry next week to deter-
mine the status of their CZM program in Terreboune Parish.

On another matter Horace Thibodaux felt that the situation with
Vince Guillory needs to be checked into. Perry Gisclair informed the,
committee that he will check on Vince Guillory to determine if he is
still interested in being on the committee.

The committee can then check to see it someone can fill the vacancy
of Gregory Terrebonne.

The next meeting was set for Wednesday, February 17, 1982 at 7:00 P.M.
in Galliano at the Port Commission Building.

There being no further business, the motion to adjourn was made by
Perry Gisclair and seconded by Caroll Adams. The motion carried.

Ed Durabb
Planning Director

228

MINUTES

CZM ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEETING

February 17, 1982

The second meeting of l982 was called to order by Ted Falgout.

The following members were in attendance:

Present Absent

Caroll Adams Robert Juul (resigned)
Ted Falgout Gerald Bordelon
Windell Curole Perry Gisclair (excused)
Dino Cheramie Horace Thibodaux (excused)
Gregory Terrebonne (resigned)

Also in attendance were Betty Raw of the Sierra; Club, Mark Daire,
and Ed Durabb of the Lafourche Parish Council.

Mider old business, the first item for discussion was the- accep-
tance of the minutes of the January 20, 1982 meeting of -he CZM"
Advisory Committee meeting.

Windell Curole moved that the. committee accept the minutes of the.
January 20, 1982 meeting of the Coastal Zone management Advisory
Committee, meeting. The motion was seconded by Ted Falgout. The
motion: carried.

Ed Durabb introduced Mark Daire, to the Advisory Committee. Mr,.
Ed, Durabb asked Mr. Daire it he had contacted. his. councilman: in,
reference to submittting a resume, to fill the vacancy that existed
an the committee Mark: Daire, informed the, committee that he-had
sent a letter and resume- to. his councilman, Joseph Saia

Ed Durabb informed the committee that Sid Ordoyne, Assistant
District Attorney, had completed his review of the CZM Ordinance.
Ed Durabb told committee members. that he would have Mr. Ordoyn's.
comments- on the CZM Ordinance at the. next meeting.

Ed Durabb informed committee members that they had received-, in
the mail, information. on. projects recommended to. the CMS of DNP
pursuant to the Coastal Environmental Protection Trust Fund. Mr.
Durabb informed committee- members that this information; was in-
relation to the four projects-that were going to-be, recommended
for-the initial pilot efforts to reduce erosion along the coast.
Ed Durabb gave committee, members background on the
four projects.

Ed Durabb informed committee members that the -State CZM program
personnel have voluntered to come to a Council meeting to e.xplain
these projects in detail.. Ile informed committee members that he
would consult with Dick egle to determine wher. the State CZM
Ed Durabb informed committee members, that he had met with Mr.
Windell. Curole im or-der to label pipelines,and canals on the EMT
maps.

Ed Durabb informed committee that 2 canals had been identified on
the North Little. Lake. E.M.U. These 2 canals were identified,as
the United and Southern Natural. Gas pipeline canals.

General discussion was held in relation to the names of pipelines
on the E.M.U. maps.The Tennessee Gas Pipeline was also identified
on the Clovelly E.M.U. map.

Ed Durabb informed committee members that the Louisiana Geological
Survey is developing a more detailed state map that may show some
of the major pipelines in the area and that this information would
perhaps be helpful in labeling other pipelines in the

Ed Durabb also informed committee members that he had contacted
2 large landowners in the coastal zone - Wisner Foundation and the
Louisiana Land and Exploration Company. We informed committee.
members that Louisiana Land and Exploration had sent a map of their
land holdings in Louisiana. lie informed committee members that
the area shown in yellow identified the Lafourche holdings.

Ed Durabb informed committee members that a map will be drawn to
show major landholdings by companies in the coastal zone. Mr.
Caroll Adams informed Ed Durabb that Tenneco-LaTerre had some large
landholdings in the area and informed EdDurabb of whom he could
contact for more information.

Ed Durabb reminded committee members that they had adopted S.E.M.Um's
at the last meeting and had. left the Caminada and Fourchon E.M.U's
open for further discussion.

Ed Durabb suggested that the committee continue discussion on other
E.M.C.s. He informed committee members that he had the Clovelly,
Clovelly Farms, and the Leeville E.M.U.,'s,for their review.
In reference to the Clovelly E.M.U., Ed Durabb informed committee
members that he was mainly interested In the goals and policies of
the E.U.U.,in which he identified various areas of the Clovel1y
E.M.U. Extensive discussion began on the,policies of the Faviron-
mental Management Units.

After much discussion on the E.M.U., the committee decided to
include another policy in. Area G in :order to prevent saltwater
intrusion caused by alluvial ridges that were destroyed or damaged.

In reference to Policy 4, committee members asked that a statement
be included as to the maintenance of the area.

Ted Falgout asked it any policies had*been designated for digging
oil field canals and;if a dry hole was,found. it provision would
be made for damming the canal. Ted Falgout asked if a policy to
this effect could be *included in. all E.M.U.s.

Ed Durabb-informed committee members that he would review policies
relating to oil and gas access canals and include in the policies
that "if the project is finished or.& dry hole is found that the
the informed committee members that he
canal would be dammed".
would researen information and include a footage requirement for
back filling the canal.

In reference to Area F, Ed Durabb informed committee members that
he would add a policy regarding a cut through Bayou L Ours.

Ed Durabb informed the committee members that he would write up
a general policy statement regarding pipeline canals.

After more discussion an piptlines, Ed Durabb asked members if they
wanted a general policy to state "Pipelines laving on the surface
of the marsh shall be discouraged". the committee concurred.

Ted Falgout informed committee members that the Part Commission has
tried to include a provision in a letter of no objection to state
."When crossing canals with pipelines, that the company bury line at
least 100 feet inland on the levee bank and maintain it.

230

Ed Durabb informed committee members that this information
could be used as a general policy and that this.was the type of
information that could be used as background when it comes to
reviewing coastal use permits.

Extensive discuss ion continued in reference to the Policies of
the Clovelly E.M.U.

In reference to general policies, Ed Durabb informed cormittee
members- that he would. specify information on backfilling, damming
of canals, etc. and use this information, as. general policies for
all E.M.U.'s

Members asked if general. policies could be done to pertain to all.
E.M.U.'s. Ed Durabb Indicated.that he would begin to do this.

Extensive discussion was. held in reference. to making a. presentation
to educate, the public on. the problems of coastal eroding-in Lafourche
Parish.

Discussion was held in relation to having- & planning meeting, in
order to determine the strategy to be-used ia making the presentation.

Ed Durabb suggested that the committee members core up with some
ideas for the next meeting.

Betty Haw of the Sierra Club- suggested that she and Mark Daire get
together before-the next meeting to comeup with some ideas to
present to- the committee at the next CZM." meeting.

The next meeting was set for March 31, 1982 at 7:00 p.m. at the
Port Comission Building in Galliano, Louisiana.

Ed Durabb informed.the committee that he would speak to Dick Egle
and notify the committegr as-to when the state (CZM personnel would
be- attending the Council meeting.

Ed Durabb informed the committee members, that he would incorporate-
the committee's suggestions into the Clovelly- E.M.U. and try to
have, this information: ready to approve at the next meeting.

There being no -further business, the motion: to adjourn was made by,
Caroll Adams and seconded by, Dino Cheramie. "*he motion carried-.

Ed Durabb
Planning Department

231

MINUTES

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

March-31, 1982

The Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee Meeting was called
to order by its chairman, Horace Thibodaux.

The following members were in attendance:

Present Absent

Caroll Adams Ted Falgout (excused)
Perry Gisclair Gerald Bordelon (excused)
Windell Curole -Dino Cheramie (excused)
Horace Thibodaux

Also present were Ed Durabb of the Lafourche Parish Council, Ms.
Betty Raw of the Sierra Club, and 2 reporters from the South
Lafourche Media.

The first item of business was the acceptance of the minutes of
the February 17, 1982 meeting of the Coastal Zone Management
Advisory Committee.

Perry Gisclair moved that the committee accept the minutes of the
previous meeting. The motion was seconded by Windell Curole. The
motion carried unanimously.

Discussion then began on the Environmental Management Units.
Ed Durabb informed the committee that he-had raworked the.Clovelly
Ed Durabb informedbased on the discussion at the last meeting. Re also told
committee members that he,had added a series-of general policies,
which would take care of many of Ted Falout's questions about what
he would like to see in the coastal zone policies.

Ed Durabb also informed committee members that he had named
additional pipeline canals on the E.M.U. maps. He also informed
the committee that he had found the dam area and named the section,
township, range and section as well as what the committee would
like to do there.

Regarding the General Policies, Ed Durabb informed committee mem-
bers that the information requested by Ted Falgout was included.
Ed Durabb told the,committee that this information was to be applied
to the entire coastal zone, except where indicated by particular
E.M.U. policies. He also said that he had tried to incorporate
Ted Falgout and Windell Curole's suggestions into the General Policies.

Ed Durabb informed committee members that one of the biggest problems
was the long-term. maintenance of construction of a dam or spoil bank
as a mitigation condition for a permit.

Committee members asked Ed Durabb contact Dave Fruce at the Lafayerte
Office of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to get additional infor-
mation on subsidence potential of Lafourche Parish. Horace Thibodaux
suggested that they might have information that we could use.

Ed Durabb reminded committee members that at the last meeting, they
had gone over Clovelly E.M.U. thoroughly.

General discussion was held in reference to problems caused by the
L.O.O.P. pipeline.

General discussion was held in reference to the location of the
L.O.O.P. Pipeline, the Wisner Foundation land holdings, and the
Clovelly EMU.

Regarding the addressing of problems with L.urabb
informed committee members that they have no control over anything-
that was done before the Coastal Zone Management Act was passed.
He also informed the committee that L.O.O.P. was a special area
and that the committee has no control over this area. He told the
committee that they can make recommendations to the state, however.
Discussion continued on the relationship of the L.O.O.P. areas & to the
State Coastal management Section. General discussion was held as
to the parallelism and consistency of management programs with
L.O.O.P. and the Lafourche Parish CZM Program.

Ed Durabb informed committee members that he would find out whose
jurisdiction the LOOP. project would fall under in relation to
management programs of the State and the Parish for the next
meeting.

Ed Durabb told committee members that he was uncertain as to how
much control the Coastal Management Section had over the L.O.O.P.
project.

A brief discussion was held on what the State CZM Program and the
local program had jurisdiction of and how the Lafourche Program
would interface with the State. Ed Durabb also made the suggestion
that it might be possible to work directly with several large
landown since they have good management plans for their wet-
lands already.

Horace Thibodaux suggested that in the permit application for
Permits of "local concern" it be specified that mitigation be per-
formed as close to the area disturbed as possible if not immediately
adjacent to the area disturbed, and that mitigation should at least
be performed in the Parish where the permit is being issued.

Ed Durabb informed committee members that they have already sent a
letter expressing this opinion to the State Coastal Management
Section of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources.

Ed Durabb suggested that the committee add a policy to the General
Policies to state that "if a permitted activity takes place in
Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone, mitigation will occur in that same
area using the following hierarchy of criteria:

Priority of (1) area where permit is taking place
mitigation: (2) E.M.U. in which permit is taking place
(3) parish
Perry Gisclair made a motion to adopt this hierarchy' of criteria
as a general.policy. The motion was seconded by Windell Curole.
The motion carried unanimously.

In reference to the Clovelly E.M.U., Caroll Adams made a motion to
accept the Clovelly E.M.U. The motion was seconded by Windell Curole.
The motion carried unanimously.

In reference to the Caminada E.M.U., Ed Durabb informed committee
members that the board road conditions would be extracted from these
Policies and included in the General Policies.

Ed Durabb also informed the committee that if the L.O.O.P. pipeline
goes through this E.M.U., he may aid another policy at a later date
in reference to the pipeline.

Discussion then began in reference to the response of major land
owners in the coastal zone as to requests or information.

233

Ed Durabb informed committee members that he had received
mitigation activities, contracts, etc. from Mr. Caroll Adams
In reference to the land holdings of the Scully Family in the
Clovelly E.M.U.

Ed Durabb told committee that: he would like-to see a cooperative
agreement with the land owners and the Parish CZM Program. This
would make management activities considerably easier.

Ed Durabb told committee members that he would write another
letter to the land owners he had not yet contacted.

Windell Curole informed Ed Durabb that he had a list of the other
major land owners in the coastal zone and would send him the
information.

General discussion continued in reference to land holdings.

Horace,Thibodaux asked Ed Durabb about the status of sand dredging
operations. Ed Durabb told the committee that he had spoken to
Joel Lindsey in reference to this information. Mr. Lindsey
informed Mr. Durabb that they were opposed to the operations and
would recommend they not approve it. Ed Durabb told the committee
that this position was as of a couple of months ago.

There beinq no further discussion on the Caminada E.M.U., Mr.
Windell Curole made the motion to accept the Caminada E.M.U. The
motion was seconded by Perry Gisclair, The motion carried unanimously..

Ed Durabb informed committee that he had a listing of all oil wells
that have been drilled in Lafourche Parish. He informed the committee
that he had received the information from the Department,of Natural
Resources.

Ed Durabb told the committee that he was obtaining blue-line copies
of maps from the Wildlife and Fisheries office of the oyster leases
in the state.

In reference to the Leeville E.M.U.,Perry Gisclair made a motion
to accept the Leevill E.M.U. The motion was, seconded by Horace
Thibodaux. The motion carried unanimously.

Discussion began on the South Barataria E.M.U. Ed Durabb gave an
explanation to the committee as to the breakdown of policies into
zones. Ed Durabb identified some of the various aspects of the area
as outlined on the E.M.U. maps and described in the policies.

General discussion was held in reference to pipelines and canals.
Ed Durabb identified the Tennessee Gas Pipeline and the Southwest
Louisiana Canal.

Committee members identified the Tidewater Canal and Plaisance Lake

Windell Curole said that in the adjacent E.M.U. that it was very
important to keep the edge of the bayou intact for when the levee
comes across, that they can't do any pumping in the area for the
South Lafourche levee unless it is blocked off completely from the
bayou.

Ed Durabb told the committee that he suggested dams be placed to
keep out saltwater.

Discussion was held in reference to the Bayou L'Ours area of South
Barataria.

Comparisons were made of land loss rates in Lafourche Parish in
comparison to other parishes in the coastal zone.

234

Committee members identified the Yankee Canal in South Barataria.

General discussion continued in reference to the general condition
on the South Barataria E.M.U. marshes.

Ed Durabb asked that members review the information on the E.M.U.
and have additions or deletions ready to discuss at the next meeting,
so that the E.M.U. can be approved.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that he will have the Raccourci
Environmental Management Unit. ready to discuss for the next meeting.

Committee members asked how many E.M.U.'s still needed to be
discussed. Ed Durabb gave the committee indications as to which
E.M.U.'s remained.

Discussion was held in reference to the CZM boundary near Lake Des-
Allemands, north of the Intracoastal Waterway. Ed Durabb informed
the commtitte that the boundary line is 100 feet inland from the
lake bottom and shoreline all the way along the St. Charles and
St. James Parish lines to north of Thibodaux.

Horace Thibodaux asked if the lands encompassed by this strip
should be divided, into with policy statements as was done for
the, rest of the Coastal Zone. Ed Durabb informed, the committee
that the boundary was, marked off and that he-would bring maps to
indicate the boundary. He gave the committee a brief explanation
of the soil characteristics of the areas. Horace Thibodaux
asked that Ed Durabb address these areas. Ed Durabb said that he
would address these areas after the existing: E.M.U.'s were completed
covering the majority of the Coastal Zone,

In another matter, Ed Durabb: informed the commitee that the Coastal
Management Section of the Department of Natural Resources will make
a presentation to the Parish Council an May 12, 1982 an "Beach
Erosion and Stabilization Projects. Ed Durabb informed the
committes that, he had spoken to Horace Thibodaux about the possi
bility of having the CZM meeting in conjunction: with the presentation.
to the Council and perhaps inviting Irv Mendelssohn from the Centar
for Wetland Resources to make a presentation of the efforts of the
LSU Center for Wetland Resources in the area of beach stabilization..

Horace Thibodaux informed the committee that he would like to have
the meeting in Thibodaux.

Ed Durabb said he would like to show the committee the CZM mosaic
and other maps he uses as. resource materials in the CZM Program.

Ed Durabb informed the, committee that they could view the presentation
and than move into the conference room to have the CZM Meeting.

Horace Thibodaux asked that when the minutes are sent out that a
small mote be included asking that members consider this possibility.

Ed Durabb asked that the committee review the CZM General Policies
he had developed. He informed the committee that he would be adding
a. policy about mitigation and that the committee would receive it in
the mail..

In reference to public information efforts in the coastal zone, Ms.
Betty Raw informed the committee that there should be an educational
program an CZM open to the public. Betty Haw informed the committee
that she and Mark Daire had discussed the, possibility and that he
was going to make some phone calls to try and set something.

Discussion then began on the status of the mark Daire resume and
his possible,appointment to the CZM committee to fill one of the
vacancies that exists. Ed Durabb :informed the committee that he
had informed Mr. Daire that he should-call his councilman. He
informed the committee that Mr. Daire had sent in a resume and that
Mr. Saia was to introduce him at the committee of Board Appointments
meeting. Perry Gisclair asked that Ed Durabb send him a copy of the
resume.

In reference to the review of the CZM Ordinance by the District
Attorney's Office, Ed Durabb informed the committee that he would
make the indicated changes in the ordinance and bring that infor-
mation to the committee. Ed Durabb gave the committee examples
of some of the items that needed changes.

Ed Durabb also informed the committee that they should review
the ordinance with the suggested changes.

Committee members asked if a meeting would be held in which the
comments that were made by the District Attorney's Office could
be discussed. Ed Durabb indicated that this would occur at the
next meeting.

There being no further business, the motion to adjourn was made
by Perry Gisclair and seconded by Caroll Adams. The motion carried
unanimously..

Ed Durabb
Planning Department

236

MINUTES

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

May 12,1982

The Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee
meeting was called to order by its chairman, Horace Thibodaux.

The following members were in attendance:

Present Absent

Horace Thibodaux Gerald Bordelon (excused)
Mark Daire Caroll Adams(excused)
Ted Falgout Perry Gisclair
Windell Curole, Dino Cheramie

Also in attendance were Ed Durabb of the Lafourche Parish Council,
Dr. Irv Mendelssohn of the Center for Wetland Resources at L.S.U.
Patrices Hines of the Houma, Courier, and a. representative of Channel
3-T.V.

Horace Thibodaux welcomed Mark Daire, who was appointed to the
Coastal Zone Management Committee. he also welcomed the news media
to the meeting.

The meeting was then turned over to Ed Durabb, who had some announce-
ments.

Ed Durabb reminded committee members of the May 13, 1986 meeting of
the Governor's Task Force on Coastal Erosion for 7:00 p.m. at the
Port Commission building in Galliano. The presentation was to be
made by Vernon. Behrhorst.

Ed Durabb told committee, members that he had received the Environ-
mental Impact Assessment for introducing freshwater into the
Barataria Basin and informed committee members that a public meeting
will be hold, on Tuesday, June 1, 1982 at 2:00 p.m. at the River-
gate in New Orleans. He also informed committee members that he
would be attending this hearing and welcomed any comments from the
members.

Horace Thibodaux asked that a reminder of this public hearing be
sent to: committee members with the next meeting notice.

Horace Thibodaux informed committee members that the final draft
Environmental Impact Statement on sand dredging operations had been
released

Under old business, Horace Thibodaux entertained a motion to adopt
the minutes of the March 31, 1982 meeting. The motion was made, by
Windell Curole to accept the minutes. The motion was seconded by
Ted Falgout. The, motion. carried unanimously.

Next for discussion was. the final review and adoption of the Fourchon
and South Barataria. E.M.U.'s

Discussion was held in reference to this material. Horace Thibodaux
stated that he didn't object to the material in South Barataria E.M.U.
but stated that he did want comments from the last meeting to be in-
cluded in the E.M.U.

237

Yor the co=ittee"s review, Ed Durabb distributed the final copy
of the South Barataria with the comments included, to the
committee members. Re also distributed a copy of the General
Policies, with the suggested additions included.

Ted Falgout asked about the status of the Fourchon E.M.U. He was
informed that no significant changes were made in the E.M.'U. and
that the information he requested was included in thi General
Policies, with the main emphasis being on mitigation parts. L

Horace Thibodaux asked if the South Barataria and Fourchon E.M.U.'s
had t*o be approved at this meeting or it they could be postponed and
addressed at the next meeting. Ed Durabb said that it was alright
to approve all three at the-next meeting.

Horace Thibodaux informed Ted Falgout that in discussions of the
,General Policies, committee members in-eluded spoil banks and dams
in the General Policies so as to apply to all of the E.Y.U.'s because
the activities occur in all areas. t

Next for discussion was the L.O.O.P. memo. Ed Durabb asked if any
one wished to comment on the memo. Windell Curole informed the
committee members that he had checked into this matter and that the t
state was satisfied with what was done at the beach, but there was
still discussion with the landowners.

Windell Curole told committee members that he had spoken to.Jim Webb,
Assistant Director of the Louisiana Offshore Terminal Authority,
and he said that he would take slides when*flying over the area and
present this information to the committee members.

The commit-tee members decided that it would be interesting to have
this presentation for the next meeting., if possible.

Discussion then began on the possibility of-establishing a mitigation
trust fund to mitigate damages in the coastal zone. In reference to t
this, Ed Durabb.distributed a copy of a letter from the U.S. Depart-
ment of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service that w%s sent to the
Terrebonne Parish,Police Jury dated April 14, 1982 inviting the panel
to set up such a fund and outlining one which had been set up in t
Cameron Parish.

Ed Durabb told committee members that the parish could have a M-1ti-
Cation trust fund and as damage was done to parish wetlands, money
would be deposited in this fund to be used for capital projects in
the parish coastal zone instead of direct mitigation by the Permit
holder.
Ed Durabb informed committee members that be had spoken to the t
Secretary - Treasurer of the Cameron Parish Police Jury and that he
was going to send a copy of the legal agreement for their trust
fund, but that it.was not executed as of yet. t
Ed Durabb informed committee members that he had no problem with the
concept and that he felt that this would be a good idea for parishes
to have funds to use in case of damages, but that he was not sure of t
how this would work or the legality of it.

Horace Thibodaux explained to the committee members the circum tances
under which- the mitigation trust fund cam into existence under @he
State Coastal Zone Plan. t
After giving-background information on the origins of this concept.
Horace Thibodaux told members that he felt thar the-concept was.gead
but that he has a problem with the system of setting it up. Re also
said that he felt that this needed to be studied further.

Horace,Thibodaux reminded the committee that this problem-had been
discussed in the committee and the concept had been adopted by the
group in their general policies.that:

11 mitigation takes place, it takes place in the parish preferably
around the site where the activity is actually occurring

0-38

If it can It take place on the site where the activity is occurring,
at least in the vicinity or within the E.M.U.

If it can't be done there, then at least in the parish, and then
after all of these are exhausted, then go outside-the parish

Horace Thibodaux told committee members that the problem with this
is that the, small people applying for permits may not have the funds
to actually, mitigate, therefore the concept of a mitigation trust
fund. He stated that he was concerned that the state and federal
agencies are actually pushing very hard for mitigation and that
concerns him because when state and federal agencies push this,
there is usually a reason behind it.

Horace Thibodaux informed committee members that he would like to
see this (mitigation trust fund) in Lafourche Parish, but he also
feels that this could get out of hand and the funds could be mis-
used by state and federal- agencies, so as not to provide the benefits
to parishes it was designed to provide.

Windell Curole stated that he understood the committee's biggest con-
cern to be that the state, and federal agencies want to control the
funds rather than the local people.

Horace Thibodaux informed committee-members that the "how" and "when"
the trust fund money-will be expended will have to be approved by the
federal or state agencies involved in the mitigation.

Horace Thibodaux also told, members that the problem he has with this
is that the state doesn't really know exactly what kind of problems
are in existence in the area. He also told committee members that he
was concerned that someone could possibly be trying to make a slush
fund to supplement money they can't get in their budget to do the
work. He informed committee members, that he disliked being the vehicle,
or the media to try to benefit on a particular agency.

Ed Durabb informed the committee that he had spoken to someone at the
U.S. Fish and wildlife. Serviced and that their concern--, via the
the money goes to the parish: that, it will be used for capital con-
strution projects that are coastal zone related.

Ed Durabb told the committee that he feels that the trust fund concept
is. a good. idea and should be followed more closely. When Cameron
Parish gets their fund set up perhaps the committee make comments
or a recommendation to the Council.

Horace Thibodaux told members that he felt that they should not Jump
into the mitigation trust fund yet, but that they should keep abreast
of it.

Mark Daire asked. about the feasibility of getting the money and estab-
lishing the fund and determining how, to spend it at a later date.

Horace Thibodaux told members that there was a liability as well as
legality problem with the placement of money into the trust fund-. He
told. members of the liability problems that could occur with the
establishment of the fund.

Horace Thibodaux told members that another of his concerns
was that the big push. for this mitigation trust fund is being made
by state and federal agencies, but when he asked these persons why
they didn't establish a mitigation trust fund under their agency. The
response was that it was not legal. He felt that they wanted to use
a local agency as a vehicle, but they want to have control over that
vehicle.

After further discussion, the committee decided to wait until receiving
information from Cameron Parish to determine what steps would be taken.
in reference to the establishment of a mitigation trust fund in the
parish.

Discussion then began on the Raccourci E.M.U. 'E'd Durabb identified
the various environments in the E.!!.T.,. He also identified the
various colors on the E.M.U. habitat map and designated what the
colors represented.

Ed Durabb informed committee members that he had sectioned off 4
areas and explained what the areas consisted of and why thuy were
singled out for Special Management.

Ed Durabb described the make-up of this E.Y.r. and informed committee
members that separate policies had been established for the area
because it was@undergoing more rapid erosion. He told committee
members of the marsh condition of the E.N.r. in comparison to the
South Barataria and Clovelly E.N.U..'s.

Ed Durabb asked that members keep in mind the fact that the General
Policies for the Lafourche Coastal Zone are in effect for all E.31.7.ls
unless specifically contradicted or modified by specific S.M.17.
policies.

Ed Durabb asked that members review the Raccourci'S.M.U. and invited
them to comment or make suggestions in reference to 'the E.M.U.

Ed Durabb told committee members that after this E.U.r. was completed,
there-would be 4 other E.M.U.'s of consequence left to r-rite policies
for - Timbalier, South Lafourche C, Bully Camp, and Golden Meadow.

Ed Durabb also told members that he should be getting land cover
statistics from the Landsat program by the end of the month and.
that these would be by E.M.U. and would help in determIning policies
for the program.

Dr. Irving Mendelssohn of the L.S.U. Center for Wetland Resources
began.his presentation on Reach-Erosion and Stabilization in Louisiana.

Dr. Mendelssohn. informed members that.in the last 3 ye-ars he has be-
come involved in projects to try to understand how Barrier Island cing
vegetation, specifically dunL1 regetation might be helpful in redu
the rate of:periodic erosion of these important features.

He told members of his three pr-Dject objectives for the Louisiana
Barrier Islands. These-objecti7es are as follows:
1. Assess the magnitude of B@rrier Island erosion problem

2. Understand the controlling factors toward erosion

3. Develop the use, of coastal vegetation as a means of reducing
Barrier Island erosiom.

Dr. Mendelssohn then showed slides which indicated 'levels of erosion
by color representations around the coastal areas.

He also told committee members of the 2 reasons for the coastline
erosion problems.- one being natural causes. because of rising sea
level and subsidence and the other being man - made causes.

Members asked what portions of the coastal erosion are due to natural
causes and what proportions are due to the man-made causes. In ref-
erence to th.is, Dr. Irv 'fendelssohn informed members that Gene Turner
of the L.S.U. Center for Wetland Resources has been looking at canals
and marshes trying to relate the amount of canal within a certain
area to the amount of land loss in the area. Mr. Turner indicat
that subsidence affect may only account for 10@'- of the total mar:sh
loss and that the canals may account as much as 905@ of mamsh loss
(speculative at this point).

Dr. Irv Mendelssohn explained to the committee what changes have.
taken place in the coastal areas around Grand Terre, Grand Isle.
Caminada, and Belle Pass areas in relation-to erosion, sand trans-
portation, and sand accumulation.

Dr. Mendelssohn identified some of the natural and man-made problems
that are causing erosion in the East Timbalier and Grand Terre Islands.

240

Dr. Irv Mendelssohn then showed a slide representing the East
Timbalier Island sea wall and explained some of the problems that
have occurred because of the existence of the sea wall.

Dr. Mendelssohn informed committee members of some af the ways to
possibly approach the erosion problems.(beach nourishment, sand
nourishment to the beach, and the use of vegetation tc keep sand
on. the beach).

Dr. Mendelssohn then stated that there are viable ways to slow down
erosion, rates by using sand nourishment to the beach, by building
up the, beach, and by then keeping sand in place by vegetation. He-
stated that he felt that this was the only economical, sound way of
approaching the Barrier Island, erosion, problem, in Louisiana,

Dr. Mendelssohn explained the benefits of sand dunes in relation to
coastal erosion and explained how sand dunes cam serve as a barrier
to coastal erosion. Tie also explained how sand can be lost to the
islands. He informed members, of how vegetation can play a role in
the creation of sand dunes and dune systems along the coast.

Dr. Mendelssohn told committee members that information had come, out
about 10 years ago to indicate that man-made sand dunes can. cause more-
erosion. He also stated that studies have been done and that there
seems,to-be, no evidence that this information is true-. He informed
members that the Louisiana Department of Wildlife and Fisheries has
comeout with a film explaining coastal erosion problems in Louisiana.

Dr. Mendelssohn then showed a comparison cost chart for beach stabi-
lization per 1000 feet. He gave cost comparisons for beach nourish-
ment, vegetation stabilization, rack rip rip, sea wall construction,
and groin fields. He, also compared the amount of area that would be-
covered by the-various amounts of money.

In conclusion, he stated that he felt that Louisiana has a mangeable
Barrier Island situation, even with the high erosion rates, but that
the erosion rates be slowed with the proper management techniques.
He informed committee members that this area can be, managed with bench
nourishment and the, state is going to be trying this with the Coastal
Trust Fund. The State will be trying to find sand sources that, can
be used and pumping it onto the beach to build dunes and extend the,
beach

General discussion continued in reference to coastal erosion problems.

Irv Mendelssohn informed committee members that in the, Fourchon Beach,
area near the Chevron Tank. Farm there, will definitely be a pilot
project which will be a beach stabilizamtion project which is a result
of the fact that couple of oil companies will be doing some dredging
In the marsh areas. As part of their-mitigation. the Coastal Manage-
ment Section his asked that they do something on Barrier beach to
reduce coastal erosion and they have aggreed to do this on Fourchon
Beach areas.

Dr. Mendelssohn informed committee members that in surveying Fourchon
Tank Farm areas that last year it eroded back 120 feet.

Windell Curole asked what was the latest information on sea level
rise. He informed committee members that he had heard that there was
a report from the University of Miami saying that there was a theory
that because of the increased fossil fuel burning that the sea level
was increasing. General discussion continued in reference to the sea
level changes that have occurred in the past centuries.

Horace Thibodaux thanked Dr. Irv Mendelssohn for making his presen-
tation to the committee members. Dr. Mendelssohn informed the
committee that he was impressed on how serious the committee was
taking the erosion problem in the parish.

241

There being no further business, the motion to adjourn was made by
Ted Falgout, and seconded by Windell Curole. The motion-carried.

Ed DurOF
Planning Director

242

MINUTES

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE

September 1, 1982

The Coastal Zone, Management Advisory Committee meeting was called.
to order by its chairman, Horace Thibodaux, with the following:

Present Absent

Caroll. Adams Gerald Bordelon
Windell Curole Mark Daire (excused)
Horace,Thibodaux Vince Guillory(excused)
Ted, Falgout Perry Gisclair (excused)
vacancy

Also present were Ed Durabb and Phil Pittman.

Horace Thibodaux entertained a motion to accept the minutes of the
May 12, 1982 meeting of the Coastal Zone Management Advisory Committee.
Ted Falgout made the motion to accept the minutes of the Coastal Zone
Management Advisory Committee. The motion was seconded by Windell.
Curole. The motion carried.

The meeting was then turned over to Ed Durabb. He informed committee
members of the E.M.U.'s which needed to be approved.

The Fourchon E.M.U. was the first E.M.U. up for approval. Ted Falgout,
referring to the E.M.U. description, told Ed Durabb that Chevron was
not the only oil company that had ranks on Fourchon Island. He stated
that Gulf and Tenneco also have tanks on the Island. Ed Durabb said
that, he would change, the E.M.U. description to reflect this.

Ted Falgout made the motion to adopt the Fourchon Environmetal. Manage-
ment Unit. The motion was seconded by Caroll Adams. The motion
carried.

The next E.M.U. for discussion was Timbalier. Ted Falgout stated that
according to the, policies,
line stabilization. with rocks. Ted Falgout also stated that if this.
was included in the policies, it would hurt the Timbalier Island. Com-
Plex since the, island was nearly all rocks now, and if anyone wants to
do any, repairs, it would be, contrary to the recommendations. He
stated that since it was nearly all rocks it should not be stated that
the company shouldn't do any shoreline erosion control. He further
said, that Gulf has its. main Timbalier field complex at this location
and that Gulf is going to be there and they area putting an invest-
ment to protect the shoreline of the island. Mr. Falgout stated that
some persons like Irv Mendelssohn feel that the rocks are not doing
their job, but Mr. Falgout stated that he disagreed.

In reference, to Policy, 8, Ed Durabb stared that perhaps, the, Gulf com-
plex should be kept open for a test facility.

Horace Thibodaux asked if the committee would want to prohibit any new
habitation on the island or just allow what is there-to remain. Mr.
Falgout stated that if any, facility needs to be added, it should be
done an this island.

Ed Durabb agreed to make changes in the Timbalier E.M.U. policies to
reflect the wishes of the committee to encourage, what Gulf Oil Company
was doing on Timbalier Island.

Ted Falgout stated that he had heard a statement from Irv Mendelssohn
that the area was deteriorating because of the jetties at Port Fourchon and that the sand transfer was not taking place and that the Port
Commission should consider providing a; sand transfer capability. He
disagreed with Irv Mendelssohns conclusions about East Timbalier and
the Fourchon Jetty.

Horace Thibodaux asked Ted Falgout for his suggestion in reference
to permanent habitation. Ted Falgout felt that perhaps @he committee
should not go so strong and maybe still give the committee or the
group that is managing the situation the ability to object to
specific projects. He stated that we should not categorically
rule out this from the area.

Ed Durabb stated that as he understood it, the committee wanted to
make 2 changes: to recognize the existence of Gulf and to state
that Gulf Oil remain there.

Ed Durabb stated that the committee could add some qualifying
language to be put in Policy 6 of the Timbalier E.H.U.

In reference to Policy 8, Ed Durabb stared that he would add a
portion to read "can be reasonably shown" rather than "can be shown

Ted Falgout made the motion to accept the Timballer E.Y.U., with the
changes. The motion was seconded by Windell Curole. The motion
carried.

Next for discussion was the Raccourci E.M.U. Horace- Thibodaux asked
Ed Durabb what was considered as permanent human habitation dwellings
and if a camp would fall under this classification. Ed Durabb stated
that this section pertained to development of subdivisions, etc.
Horace Thibodaux suggested that Ed.Durabb clarify what was meant as
permanent habitation dwellings.

Ed Durabb stated that.he could perhaps put in a definition section and
include "permanent@human habitation dwellings" in the section.

Ed Durabb reminded members that: in the state plans, camps have a
general permit. He stated that perhaps it would be good to point this
out somewhere in the ordinance. IQ

Horace Thibodaux made the,motion to accept the-Raccourci E.M.U. The
motion was seconded by Caroll Adams. The motion carried.

The next E.M.U. for discussion was the South- Barataria E.Y.U. There
was no discussion on this E.M.U. Ted Falgout made the motion to
accept the.South Barataria E.M.U. The motion was seconded by Windell
Curole. The motion carried.

Ted Falgout asked Ed Durabb if he had found the name of the unidenti-
fied lake. Ed Durabb stated that he had been unable to find the name
but would include-the range and township lines.

.Under old business, Horace Thibodaux informed members that he had
received from the Corps of Engineers a copy of the reply to his
questions he had raised at the public hearing for the Lafourche
Coastal Study on freshwater diversion. He stated that he would dis-
tribute-& copy for the committee's review.

Under new business, the first E.M.U. ?or discussion was the South
Lafourche "A". Ed Durabb stated that this information had been
mailed to committee members. Mr. Durabb identified South Lafourche
...V.
and "B" on the land cover map on display at the meetina.

Members-asked if the Clovelly E.H.U. would be within the levee. Mr.
Windell-Curole stated that it would not be included within the levee.
Ed Durabb stated-that in his.statemenzs he was assuming that Clovelly-
would be in the levee.

Ed Durabb stated that the reason he separated it in the description
was that it the levee was built around ClovellF, fine, but if it was
not in the levee,.we have to keep Clovelly the way it wFLs in the
policies.

Ed Durabb said that he had included the South Lafourche Levee on the
Clovelly E.m.U.

Ed Durabb showed 1980 Landsat photos of South Lafourche -A- and
stated that we should be receiving land use statistics for each E.M.C.
in the Coastal Zone.

944

Ed Durabb showed "change maps for 1976 to 1980 and explained what
color codings; represented. He stated that he would have "change
maps" for each E.M.U.

Ed Durabb asked if members had any objections to accepting the
South Lafourche "A","B",and "C" E.M.U.'s. He also asked if they
objected to accepting the Golden Meadow and Bully Camp E.M.U.'s.

There being no discussion on the South Lafourche "A" E.M.U., Mr.
Windell Curole made the motion: to accept the South Lafourche "A-
E.M.U. The motion was seconded by Caroll Adams. The motion carried.

There being no objection, the motion to accept the, South Lafourche
"B" E.M.U. was made by Ted Falgout and seconded by Windell Curole.
The. motion carried.

There being no objection, Caroll Adams made-the motion to accept
the South Lafourche "C" E.M.U. The motion was seconded by Windell
Curole. The motion carried.

There being no discussion on the Bully Camp E.M.U., Caroll Adams
made the motion to accept the Bully Camp E.M.U., The motion was seconded by Horace Thibodaux. The motion carried.

There being no objection to the Golden Meadow E.M.U., Ted Falgout
made the motion to accept the Golden Meadow E.M.U.,The motion was
seconded by, Hoarce Adams . The motion carried.

Ed Durabb then distributed additional Landsat information showing
land and water areas of the-parish for the committee's review. Dis-
cussion was held in-reference to this information.

Ed Durabb continued to brief members as to what data was shown on.
the,Landsat frames.

Mr.Durabb stated that he would be going to Baton Rouge on the follow-
ing Friday and that he should have same products ready, by the end of
September. He also stated that he wouldbe doing;a demonstration at
LSU on Friday, October 1, 1982.He invited members to attend and in-
formed, them that written,invitations, would be sent out.

Ed Durabb stated one of the problems with Landsat information was that
this has never become an operational system because money, was never
in it. He stated that the Defense Department was the prime user of this
information.

Ed Durabb informed members at that at the next meeting he hoped to
have all the economic,demographic, and land cover information written
up for committee review.

Ed Durabb stated that he had distributed to the committee a draft of
an introductory-chapter on E.M.U.'s. He stated that the suggestion
of including a. definition section was a good one. He said that he
would probably include definition section and asked that committee
members review the information they had.

Ed Durabb said that he wanted to discuss what sort of procedure
should be made to present the program to the Council.

Ed Durabb stated that Sandi Aymond would be preparing graphics of
the permitting system, what are uses of local concerns, and simpli-
fy the program and that he would try to call a special meeting to
discuss the proposed ordinance.

Discussion continued in reference to the submittal of the ordinance
to the Parish Council. Ed Durabb said that he would be looking to
present the program to the Council at one of the regular meetings
in October. The program would be presented for approval and sub-
mitted to the Coastal Management Section of the Department of
Natural Resources.

Ed Durab stated that the committee has the ordinance. E.M.U.'s land
cover information. He stated that he was awaiting population pro-
jection information from UNO. He further said that most of the
population in the coastal zone was protected by the levee and that

there was very little impact except with activities dome in the wet--
lands and with water Pollution.

Ed Durabb said that almost everything in th e program with the excep-
tion of some of the graphics, shbuld be ready to-go to the Council,
and the resolution the Council has.to produce would be completed.
He stated that the report would not be completed but that he could
review it and then send thb information to the committee members
as he completed i-c.

Members asked if the Council would have to approve the ordinance.
Ed Durabb stated that they would have to pass a resolution, td accept
the ordinance and the program.

Discussion continued in reference to public hearings being held and r
the acceptance of the ordinance by the Council and the state.

Ed Durabb stated that the Council would review the ordinance, pass a
resolution supporting the program, and then submit the program to
the state. He stated that after the-state approves the ordinance.
the Council can pass the ordinance and the public hearing can be-
held.

Ed Durabb said that*he wanted to get the program before the Council
some time in October.
t
Phil Pittman commented that the C= contract with the Department of
Natural Resources will end on December 31, 1982.
Ed Durabb asked Phil Pittman it the public hearing should be held t
before or after the draftwas sent to the Department of Natural -
Resources. Phil Pitzman. responded that the public hearing should be
held after the draft was sent. After this time, a review would be
help that would tLake, approximately@ 1 to lj weeks.

Phil Pittman further stated that some program received to date-have
a problem with explaining the permitting process with uses of state
and local concern.

Ed Durabb stated that the parish has a schematic alread7 drawn and
will do a permitting punch list to eliminate confust-on.

Discussion was held in reference'to forms to be used with the reporr.
Discussion was also held in reference to fees. being charged for the
review@of permits of local concern. In reference to this information,
Phil Pittman stated that New Orleans and Jefferson Parishes use a
scale to.determine the cost for reviewing permits.

Horace Thibodaux stated that before submi-ttingthe draft that the..
committee needs to go over the appeals process. Discussion continued
in reference to appeals. Discussion was also held in reference to
conflicts of interest.

The next meeting was scheduled for Wednesday, September 29, 1982.,

With no further discussion, the motion to adJourn was made by Caroll
Adams and seconded by Ted Falgout.

Planning Department
Edwin J. Dj@pabtr

246

MINUTES

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEEA

January 26, 1983

The-meeting of the Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Advisory,
Committee was called to order by the acting chairman, Ted Falgout,
with the following.:

Present Absent

Mark Dalre, Gerald Bordelon
Ted Falgout Horace Thibodaux
Caroll Adams
Perry Gisclair
Windell Curole
Gerald Louviere
Vince Guillory

Also Present were-Ed Durabb of the Lafourche Parish Council, Phil
Pittman and Joel Taylor of the Coastal Management Advisory Section of the
Louisiana Department of Natural Resources, and Ronald Kilgen of
Nicholls State University.

The 1st item of business was the acceptance of the minutes of the
September 1, 1982 meeting of the Coastal Zone Management Advisory
Committee. On amotion by Ted Falgout,seconded by Windell Curole-
the minutes were accepted.

The next items for discussion were Volume 1 and Volume 2 of the
CZM Report. ED Durabb Introduced the representatives from the
Coastal Management Section of the Louisiana Department of Natural
Resources for their comments on the CZY draft report. Phil Pittman
stated that, other than the one small section omitted;from the re-
port and minor typos and spelling, the report was by far the most
comprehensive local plan of the 12 he had seen to date, i.e. the
best of all the parishes that had submitted CZM plans. He also
state&- that it would be his. recommendation, to accent the plan
basically as written. once officially submitted by the Lafourche
Parish Council.

Ed Durabb then distributed copies of a draft of a section of the CZM
report inadvertently omitted entitled "Resources,Resource Users and
Conflicts".

Phil Pittman also mentioned that Lafourche Parish was the only parish,
to be, site-specific with their CZM plan of all those submitted and
that the committee-should be proud of this.

Ed Durably their asked the Advisory Committee if they had any comments.
criticism or change they would like to make-in the draft report.
There were no comments.

Ed Durably then brought up for discussion what would happqen to the
CZM plan after-it was approved by the CZM committee. He asked Phil
Pittman a if any parishes had already been approved and if so, what
Procedure had they used to route their Plan through their Parish
Council or Police Jury.

Mr. Pittman-said that only Cameron Parish, had submitted their plan
to the Louisiana-Department of Natural Resources to date. His rec-
ommendation was that the plam be submitted to, the Parish Council
and advertise at more or less the same time for a public hearing
on the proposal since there is a 30 day notice requirement for
Public hearing responses under the law.

Phil Pittman stated that he felt this could be-done concurrently
because there usually were not any major chances in the plans sub-
mitted for the public hearings to date for local plans.

Phil Pittman told the commit-tee that Lafourche Parish had the Coastal
Management Section approval right now to go ahead with submittal and
a public hearing.

Ed Durabb then asked Councilman Perry Giselair what procedure he
would recommend to bring the CZU plan to the Council. Ed Durabb
thought it best to start with Perry Gisclair's cor=ittee (Drainage),
and get it approved by the CoILMittee@before submitting it to the
Council.

Perry Gisclair suggested that the plan could be brought either before
joint committees or one committee with other councilmen invited to
come. He thought that. this would be better since the comittee would
have more time to hear a complete presentation of CZM.

A question was raised by Ted Falgout as to whether the oil companies
would receive copies of this report. Fd Durabb stated that he would
probably send them copies as the time for the public hearing drew
near.

Windell Curale brought up an E.M.U. policy-issue that had been dis-
cussad Previously regarding how long a company would be required to
maintain an environmental mitigation facility (such as plug or spoil
bank) under the Parish CZM program. The Policies currently read,
.. as long as the company operates in Lafourche Parish." Windell Curole,
wished to delete this and leave it open ended with some different
language so as to not-put undue burden on local government to main-
tain costly mitigation facilities.

Xr. Pittman told the committee that oil companies had been cooperating'
quite well in the last 6 months with the permitting system at the
state level including,the construction of mitigation facilities as
conditions for permits.

Ted F&lgout asked Mr. Pittman to what extent the state would recow-
nize, the Lalourche-plan since@most oil and was activities were '*uses@
of state concern" subject to state not localpermits. Phil Pittman
said that the state would indo-M-rate Lafourche,Parish comments into
any permit conditions for uses of state concern that the committee
comments on, i.e. they would incorporate what Lafourche recommends
i-rm their permit review based on our CZM plan. Phil Pittman said
'that the Lafourche Plan Policies would be auzomaticalI7 used in state
permit evaluations. The local CZY administa-Wtor could also recommend
additional comments in his permit review if he wished.

Returning to the original discussion on oil companies maintaining
their mitigation efforts, Windell Curole, suggested that the wording
of the general policies be changed to "should be maintained" instead
of the existing language.

Gerald Louviere suggested that any disturbed marsh be returned to its
original state by the permit applicant as a condition on the permits.
After-some discussion, it was agreed by the committee that, while
this was desirable, it might be construed as an unreasonable condition
due to the expense of hauling-extra fill,to-a site that could not -
possibly be refilled by oxidized organic material originally excavated
for the pipelineor oil well or other-structure.

Several committee members voiced the opinion that,the ls% objecrive
of the CMI Committee was to get the C7_11 program passed and that im-
posing onerous conditions on oil companies would make At that
much more difficult due to increased opposition over regulation or
unreasonable requirements.

Deviating from the discussion, Gerald Louviere asked what the state,
would do with our plan. Phil Pittman, said that the Coastal manage-
ment Section of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources would
recommend approval of the Lafourche plan to the Secretary of the

248

Louisiana Department of Natural Resources. He (the Secretary) has
90 dam after-submittal by Lafourche Parish to hold a public hearing
and approve or disapprove our local plan. Phil Pittman said his
recommendation to the Secretary would be for approval. Phil Pittman
said that after approval, the state would provide probably S40,000 -
S50.000 implementation money to Lafourche Parish to set up the local.
Program.

In returning, back to the original discussion, Windell Curole made a
motion that the words "as long as the individual or corporation
operates- in Lafourche Parish" be deleted from the Lafourche CZM E.M.U.
policies. The motion was seconded by Ted Falgout. It carried unan-
imously.

Perry Gisclair then explained to Mr. Louviere how the state has
monitored the development of the Lafourche program and that our
Plan has benefited from this close cooperation.

Ed Durabb also presented Mr. Louviere with a history of Lafourche
Parish's participation in the developing state and local CZM program
since its inception in 1976. One point Ed Durabb stressed was that
the local,participation. was voluntary for the parish in he state
program. He further stated that for perhaps the 1st time, the parish
has some say so in what happens in their own wetlands. Prior to
this, control of activities was exclusively a federal concern through
the U.S. Army Corps-of Engineers 404 Permit Program.

There was general discussion regarding the committment of large
amounts of state funds for erosion control and freshwater diversion.
Hr. Pittman announced that approval of a freshwater diversion project
into the Barataria Basin at "Davis Pond" in St. Charles Parish had
been tentatively approved and should be- operational. in 10 years
helping to- rejuvenate the marshlands of the Barataria, Basin, thus
benefiting Lafourche Parish.

Perry Gisclair asked Ed Durabb if he wanted to wait until after the
Council approved the plan to advertiser for the public hearing. Ed
Durabb told Perry Gisclair that he thought we should wait at least
until after committee approval before proceeding.

Ed Durabb then told the committee that he-would appreciate their
being at the Lafourch Parish Council committee meeting to help ex-
plain the program to the committee and to the full Council. Cer-
tainly, the Advisory Committee would have an official meeting in
order to hold. a public hearing on the CZM plan.

One final item was discussed,. the budget for the local CZM program.
Ed Durabb told the committee,that a "wish" budget had been set up
for personnel and equipment in the 1979 local program report. He,
said that he would update. this considering anticipated revenues and
Mail the Committee a copy. These questions will come up at the
Council meeting, and public hearings, so it does need to be addressed.

The committee then approved the CZM report and program by acclamation.
No definite meeting date was set. Ed Durabb told the committee he
would be in touch, to invite, committee members to the council committee
meeting and inform them of the program's progress.

Phil Pittman, assured the committee of continued state support after
federal monies are ended. Even if the parish abrogated their re-
sponsibilities under CZM, the state would still continue to manage
the coastal zone under the existing program.

There being no further business, on a motion by Windell Curole,
seconded by Perry Gisclair, the meeting was adjourned.

Ed Durabb
Secretary

Appendix iii

LAFOURCHE COASTAL ZONE MANAGMCMT

PROGRAM APPROVAL DOCUMMATION

LAFOURCHE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
APPROVAL DOCUMENTATION

The Lafourche Parish CZM program was submitted to

the Lafourche Parish Council- for approval on Thursday,

March 24, 1983. As per the Lafourche Parish CZM contract

and CZM program regulations, a public hearing was adver

tised for,and held on April 20, 1983. The purpose of this

hearing was to solicit comments on the proposed local

program. The-meeting was held in the coastal zone at the

Greater Lafourche Port Commission Building in Galliano,

Louisiana-

This section contains the following program approval

documentation.

(1) Parish Council resolution. approving the local CZM
Program

(2) Parish Council minutes, introducing and approving
the local CZM Ordinance

(3) Public hearing notice and publication dates

(4) List of attendees at the public hearing-

(5) minutes of the public hearing

(6) written comments on the CZM program

(7) response to public hearingcommentors

(8) Newspaper articles regarding the-program submittal
and public hearing

On motion by Perry J. Gisclair seconded by

Joseph L. Sala the following Resolution was intro-

duced and adopted.

RESOLUTION

Whereas, Lafourche Parish is suffering severely from

erosion and saltwater intrusion: and

WHEREAS, these problems. no and in the future. will

cause severec flooding, economic, and environmental problems;

and

the Parish currently has little or no control

over activities in its own parish wetlands; and

WHEREAS, the State of Louisiana has implemented a com-

prehensive Coastal Zone Management Plan to address the problems

of erosion and saltwater intrusion; and

WHEREAS,. Louisiana offers local governments an opportunity

to develop a local plan in partnership with the state, to manage

parish wetlands in the. coastal zone; and

WHEREAS, Lafourche Parish, through the Planning Department

and the Coastal. Zone Management Advisory Committee, has developed

a plan that meets all state requirements and addresses Lafourche

Parish coastal problems: and

BE IT BY RESOLVED, that the Lafourche Parish Council

supports the need for coastal zone management; and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the Lafourche Parish Council

convened in regular session on March 24, 1983 does hereby accept

the proposed local Coastal Zone Management program as outlined

in the draft Coastal Zone Management Plan: and

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that certified copies of this

Resolution be sent to Mr. Phil Pittman,Louisiana Department

Natural Resources, Coastal Management Section, Baton Rouge,

Charles Maggio, Secretary
LAFOURCHE PARISH COUNCIL

Dick Egle, President
LAFOURCHE PARISH COUNCIL

March 24, 1983
Thibodaux, Louisana

STATE OF LOUISANA
PARISH OF LAFOURCHE

It being 3:00 P.M. Parish Presidant Dick Egle' called

the Regular Session of the Lafourche Parish Council to order

with the following:

PRESENT: Dick Egle', President Donald Folse
Davis "BIlly" Framin Roddy P. Breaux
Burgess J. Clament Joseph L. Saia
Edwin H. Chiasson Kenneth "Matt" Manharma
Isaac Johnson,Jr. Weldon P. Matharne
Louis Richard Perry J. Gisclair
Manuel P. Delatta Rodney J. Terrabonne
Junius P. Rodriguez, Jr.

ABSENT: Oris "Jay" Charamie

Mr. Junius J. Rodriguez, Jr. led the Council in an
opening prayer of thanks.

Mr. Weldon J. Matherne led the Council in the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.

On motion by Isaac Johnson, Jr., seconded by Perry J.
Gisclair, the Council adopted the minutes of its March 9, 1983
Regular Session.

Mr. Donald J. Borne presented the following Administrator's
report:

1. Mr. Borne presented Miss Joan Gaudet and Miss Tami
Barrilleaux, representing Thibodaux High School, who will
serve as pages for this March 24, 1983 Council Meeting.
2. Mr. Borne indicated that only 46 of 275 Council
employees responded favorably to a questionaire concerning
their interest in a cancer insurance policy provided by
American Family Life Insurance. Mr. Borne stated that an
agreement had been made that this coverage would be provided
to Council employees only if 50% or more were interested.
Therefore, on a motion by Denis "Billy" Framin, seconded by

253

Mr. Bof Bouchard, representing the Bayou Council on
Alcholism, nest addressed the Council. Mr. Boushard stated
that $2,000,000.00 had been allocated by the State in a
D.W.I. Law Enforcement Fund, for use by parish governments
in the operation of Local D.W.I. Law enforcement programs.
He stated the Bayou COuncil on Alcoholism presently operates
a D.W.I. School, and is interested in obtaining a grant of
$74,231.00 for exppanding its operations. However, the
application for these funds must be made by the Lafourche
Parish Council, since the Bayou OCuncil on Alcoholism is no9t
eligible to receive the funds directly from the State.
After a brief discussion, it was agreed that a Resolution be
prepared approving an application applying for $74,821.00 of
D.W.I. Lae Enforcement Funds to be used by the Bayou Council
on Alcoholism for its program in Lafourche Parish.
RESOLUTION "A"
Mr. Weldon P. Matherne presented the following Building
Committee report:
1. Mr. Matherne indicated what the renovations to the
second floor of the old Jail Building, for use by the Clerk
of Court's office as a storage facility, were nearly completed.
2. Mr. Matherne state the land to be used for the
construction of the Region "C" Maintenance Barn had been
cleared, filled and compacted. The Council is awaiting results
of the final compaction test, prior to the letting of bids
and beginning of construction of this facility.
3. Work will begin shortly on the patio area of the old
First Federal Building for a Laboratory for the detectives of
the Lafourche Parish Sheriff's Office.
Mr. Perry J. Gisclair presented the following March 14,
1983 Drainage Committee report to the Council:
Mr. Louis Thibodaux addressed the committee concerning
a proposal to abandon a 500 foot section of rights-of-way
located in Manchester Manor. On motion by Perry J. Gisclair,
seconded by Joseph L. Saia, the committee agreed to recommend

254

that this abondonment be approved by the Council provided
the necessary right-of-way be obtained to reroute the
drainage.
Mr. Ed Durabb then presented the committee the proposed
Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Plan. A summary
of the plan was distributed to committee members. Mr. Durabb
advised that for the past 22 months, he along with members
of the Coastal Zone Management Committee had drafted the
proposed plan. Mr. Durabb began his presentation with a
brief history of Lafourche Parish. He stated that 33 percent
of Lafourche Parish was water and wetlands, and that 4,000
square acres of land is lost per year. Leading causes of
this loss are susidence, erosion and salt water intrusion.
He then explained the major element of the proposed plan
including the permitting system. Environmental Management
Units, and the goals, objections and policies of the program.
Mr. Durabb stressed the importance of this proposed plan,
and the proposed permit plan to regulate activities in the
coastal zone of Lafourche Parish, so that our marshes may be
preserved. Mr. Durabb concluded his presentation by request-
ing the committee review the plan and recommend to the Council
that the program be accepted, and that an Ordinance be intro-
duced establishing the permit program. If the Council approved
the Coastal Zone Management Plan, a public hearing shall be
held prior to its adoption.
On motion by Perry J. Gisclair, seconded by Joseph L.
Saia, the committee agreed to recommend to the Council that
the Coasta Zone Management Plan be accepted in the form of
a Resolution.
RESOLUTION "3"
Chairman Perry Gisclair thanked Mr. Durabb and other
members present for this Coastal Zone Managementy Plan, which
has been highly acclaimed by state officials.

255

On motion by Perry J. Gisclair, seconded by Joseph L.
Saia, the Council adopted the March 14, 1983 Drainage
Committee report.
Governor David S. and Mrs Codie Treen entered the
meeting. Governor Treen addressed the Council indicating
he was attending this Council session to better acquaint
himself with the operations of local government. He further
stated he was aware that local government has many needs,
but unffortunately, at this time these needs run far ahead
of the funding capacity of both local and state governemtns.
Governor Treen complimented Parish President Dick Egle' for
his dilligence in obtaining staate funds for needed projects
throughout Lafourche Parish. He also offered his aid and
assistance, whenever needed, to any Council members
Councilmen Perry Gisclair presented the March 22, 1983
Drainage Committe report to the Council:
After a lenthy discussion with representatives of
Valentine Sugars concerning drainage imporvements needed on
Mcleod and Doussan Planatations, Parish President Dick Egle'
agreed to give consideration to these drainage problems,
and at Valentine;'s request, he issued a letter confirming
that these drainage situatins would be considered.
Representatives from Valentine then granted verbal
permisssion to the Lafourche Parish Water District No. 1 to
proceed with the installation of the waterline on McLeod
Plantation, fronting Louisiana Highway 308.
Councilman Isaac Johnson, Jr. requested of the Drainage
Committee Chairman that he be allowed to discuss an item not
on the agenda. There being no opposition to his request, the
following was discussed: Mr. Johnson requested that funds
be made available to assist the City of Thibodauk in improv-
ing drainage by digging the McCulla Canal and installing
eniverts under South Hospital Drive. Mayor Bart Hebert
addressed the committee and supported Mr. Johnsons's request.

256

On motion by Joseph L Saia, seconded by
Roddy F. Breaur, the following Ordinance
was proposed in Regular Session convened on
April 13, 1983:
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
The following Ordinance, having been previously intro-
duced and published, was offered for final adoption by
Cris "Jay" Charamie, seconded by Ferry J.
Gisclair :
ORDINANCE NO 1442

AN ORDINANCE TO ESTABLISH SUB-CHAPTER "E" OF CHAPTER IS
OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES OF LAFOURCHE PARISE, TO BE
ENTITLED "COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT PLAN OF LAFOURCHE
PARISH." THIS ORDINANCE ESTABLISHED A COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE LAFOURCHE PARISH, ESTABLISHES THE
OFFICE OF COASTAL ZONE ADMINISTRATOR, ESTABLISHES AND
DEFINES A PERMITING SYSTEM TO PERMIT ACTIVITIES IN THE
LEGALLY DEFINED LAFOURCHE COASTAL ZONE, PROVIDES FOR
PERMIT APPEALS, PENALTIES, SPECIAL PERMITS AND ERER-
GENCY USES, PROVIDES FOR MODIFICATIONS, SUSPENSIONS AND
REVOCATION OF PERMITS AND ESTABLISHES AN AMENDMENT
PROCEDURE. GUIDANCE FOR PERMIT DECISIONS IN THIS
ORDINANCE ARE REFERENCED TO THE COMPLETE COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PLAN WHICH IS REFERENCED IN THIS ORDINANCE
AND WHICH THIS ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTS.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE PARISH OF LAFOURCHE,
LOUISIANA, THAT:

SECTION L. The Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management

Ordinance is hereby enacted for the purpose of:

(1) protect, restore, and enhance the resources of
the coastal zone for the benefit and enjoyment
of the present and future generations;

(2) ensure the maintanance, continued protection and
prudent use of the natural resources, renewable
and nonrenewable, therein;

(3) promote public safety, health and welfare;

(4) protect wildlife, fisheris, aquatic life, wet-
lands, estuaries and waterways; and

(5) preserve and protect the remaining scenic and
historic resources of the coastal zone;

257

RECEIVED BY:
DATE:

NOTICE of Public Hearing

LAFOURCHE PARISH COASTAL ZONE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM

DATE. April 20, 1983, 7:00 P.M.
LOCATION: Greater Lafourche Port Commission
Bldg.Galliano, La.

LIMITED COPIES OF THE PARISH, PROGRAM ARE AVAILABLE
FOR DISTRIBUTION BY CONTACTING THE LAFOURCHE PARISH
PLANNING DEPARTMENT. COPIES OF THE PROGRAM ARE AL
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW AT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT
OFFICE DURING REGULAR BUSINESS HOURS(8:30 - 4:30
MONDAY - FRIDAY UNTIL THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC
HEARING.

PUBLISH: 3/24, 3/28, 3/31 & 4/04/83

258

LIST OF PUBLIC HEARING ATTENDEES

Name
1. Horace Thibodaux CZM Advisory Committee Chairmant (Representing T. Baker Smith Engineers and Consultants)
2. Ted Falgout CZM Advisory Committee ( Directior, Greater Lafourche Port Commission)
3. Windell Curole CZM Advisory Committee ( General Manager, South Lafourche Levee District)
4. Gerald Louviere CZM Advisory Committee (Operations Assistatnt Chevron Oil Company
5. Perry Gisclair CZM Advisory Committee (Owner, Gulf Shrimp Processors, Incorporated) Parish Councilman
6. Mark Daire CZM Advisory Committee ( Agricultureal Extension Agent for Fisheries)
7. Ed Durabb Lafourche Parish Planning Director
8. Phil Pittman Coastal Management Section, Louisana Department of Natural Resources
9. Joel Taylor Coastal Management Section , Louisana Department of Natural Resources

COMMENTORS
1. A.H. Honeycutt CKB & Associates, Inc.
2. Andy Galliano Lafourche Parish Civil Defense Director
3. Geral Louviere Lafourche CZM Advisory Committee

259

PUBLIC HEARING COMMENTS

COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT

April 20, 1983

The official Lafourche Coastal Zone Management Program Public
Hearing was called to order at 7:10 P.M. by the Coastal Zone
Management Advisory Committee chairman, Horace Thibodaux.

The following members were:

Present Absent

Horace Thibodaux Caroll Adams
Ted Falgout Vince Guillory
Windell Curole
Gerald Louviere
Mark Daire
Perry Gisclair

Also present were the following persons:

Ed Durabb - Lafourche Parish Council Planning Director
Phil Pittman - Coastal Management Section - Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources
Joel Taylor - Coastal Management Section - Louisiana Department
of Natural Resources
A. H. Honeycutt - CKB & Associates, Inc.
Andy Galliano - Lafourche Parish Civil Defense Director
Sandi Aymond - Planning Department draftperson
Members of the news media

Chairman Thibodaux welcomed everryone to the public hearing and then
turned the meeting over to Ed Durabb for a presentation on the
Lafourche CZM plan.

Mr. Durabb explained how the CZM Advisory Committee was organized
and the method they used to assist him in developing the draft
plan. He passed out CZM Information Packets to all present with
the following information:

1. Questions and Answers about the Lafourche CZM Program
2. Elements of the State and Local Program
3. CZM Permit Flow Chart and Description
4. Environmental Management Unit Packet
a. Description
b. List
c. Sample E.M.U.

260

Mr. Durabb then outlined the tremendous productivity of the Lafourche
Parish marshlands how the area was formed, and how the parish fits
into the ecosystem of coastal Louisiana.

Ed Durabb then, using charts, spoke about the problems of the coastal
zone, namely land loss and saltwater intrusion. He discussed the
environmental and economic consequences of these problems for the
parish.

Mr. Durabb then gave a brief history of Coastal Zone Management in
the state and parish. He explained where the CZM boundary was lo-
cated using charts and explained that activities in the coastal
zone would be regulated using a permitting system.

He showed the committee a chart listing activities excluded from
permitting to emphasize the type of activities that are covered
by the CZM Program.

Ed Durabb then described the Lafourche local program including the
following elements:

1. Technical Information Base
2. Environmental Management Units
3. CZM Permit System
4. Uses of Local and State Concern
5. Special Areas
6. Uses of Regional Concern

He concluded his presentation with the following statements.

1. There are serious problems that threaten our parish today.
If these problems are not solved, it will result in the
disappearance of Lafourche Parish.

2. Until recently, Lafourche had no plan and no say so as to
what happened in its own wetlands. What controls there
were rested with the federal government.

3. Lafourche Parish has, for the 1st time, a coherent program
to regain control of its own wetlands by responsibly managing
them in a partnership with the state.

4. If Lafourche Parish accepts and implements this program, the
parish will have gone a long way toward insuring that the
economy, environment, and way of life that is so unique to
this area will continue.

After Mr. Durabb concluded his presentation, Horace Thibodaux asked
the representatives of the Louisiana Department of Natural Resources
if they had any comments.

Phil Pittman told the committee that he was available to answer any
questions at the public hearing.

261

Chairman Thibodaux then opened the floor for comments on the
Lafourche CZM Program.

The lst speaker was Mr. A. H. Honeycut , representing, CKB &
Associates, Inc. of New Orleans. Mr. Honeycutt opened his
comments with a question. His firm operated in an area that.
appears to be inside the narrow strip of the coastal zone
(100 yards inland from the mean high water mark of Bayou Des
Allemands) running along the Lafourche Parish boundary area
extending from the Tisamond Foret Canal and Lake Salvador all
the way up the parish to the St. James Parish line.

Mr. Honeycutt asked if the CZM Committee or Mr. Durabb had
developed any policies for this area as they had for the 16
Environmental Management Units south of the Intracoastal Water-
way.

Mr. Durabb clarified that the CZM Program only applied within
the officially designated zone.

Mr. Honeycutt then went to the CZM boundary map and pointed out
the narrow area he is concerned with. Mr. Honeycutt said that
if there are no policies for this narrow area, then he would not
comment at this time. He said that he would appreciate the
opportunity to comment on the plan if and when such plans and
policies are developed for the area. he is concerned with.

Mr. Durabb explained that, unlike the southern Portion of the
Parish whose land area allowed the creation of environmental
management units with largely physical and/or hydrological
boundaries, -this narrow strip was arbitrarily drawn across many.
types of environments, i.e. brackish marsh, fresh marsh, flooded
reclaimed marsh and swamp. He (Mr. Durabb) felt that it would
be better to concentrate on the large land area of Lafourche in
the coastal zone and leave this area alone for the present. When
the parishes of St. Charles, St. John, and St. James have com-
pleted their respective plans, he would review the policies they
had set for their environmental management units bordering on
Lafourche Parish. It he was in agreement with their policies,
he would adopt similar policies. If there. were changes that
needed to be made, he and the Advisory Committee would make the
changes and submit an amendment to the plan, adding these units
to the Local management structure.

(It must be noted here that state guidelines woild still apply in
this area in the absence of any specific parish policies).

Mr. Durabb assured Mr. Honeycutt that his name would be kept on
file and that he would be notified when any policies were devel-
loped for the area he is concerned with.

The next speaker was Mr. Andy Galliano of the Lafourche Parish
Civil Defense Organization.

262

Mr Galliano said that his only comment is that he would like to be kept aware of the CZM program since he is involved with
Civil Defense and hurricane evacuation. He felt that this plan could have some impact on the efforts of his organization.

He also mentioned a 7 parish study currently underway in conjunction with the flood insurance program designed to more accurately
assess elevations in coastal Lafourche to modify that program to more realistic setting of flood zones.

The next speaker was Gerald Louviere member of the Lafourche CZM Advisory Commitee. His only comment was that after the
Lafourhe plan gets parish and state approval that a copy of the plan be forwarded to the mayor and council of the Town of
Golden Meadow.

There were no further speakers. Mr Thibodaux asked the Lousiana Department of Natural Resources representatives if they wishe
to make any additional comments.

Mr. Pittmant outlined the procedure for final submittal of the CZM plan to the committee after the public hearing. Mr Pittmana
said that this by far is the best plan his office has seen so far, the most comprehensive plan that has be3en done and that
Ed Durabb , and the people on the Advisory committee are to be congratulated.

Mr Pittman in response to a question from Horaace Thibodaux outlined the submittal status of the other local programs up for
approval (six to date). St Benard, St. James, and Cameron Parishes have officially submitted their programs.

Horace Thibodaux asked Mr. Pittman if Lafourche was only required to hold 1 public hearing. Mr Pittman said that was correct/

Mr Louviere asked what the status of the local plan was with the Parish Council.

Councilman Perry Gisclar explained that the plan had been submitted through the Drainage Committee to the Parish Council.
The Council had approved the program by resolution (see attached) and that the CZM Ordinance was up for final approval at the
next regular Council meeting (April 28 1983)

Ted Falgout commented on how far CZM had progressed fro a time when the carrot of the CEIP program lured parishes to begin
developing plans to today when there is little project money but much interest in sound CZM planning.

Horace Thibodaux then asked Ed Durabb to outline the process that would be followed after the public hearing. Ed Durabb
outlined the following steps that would be taken;

I. public hearing comments would be addressed in writing
2. public hearing file would remain open 10 days

3. Parish Council would pass CZM Ordinance
4. minor modification in the CZM plan as per the request of the
Louisiana Geological Survey would be made
5. if there are no major changes or disruptions in the process,
the plan could be submitted to the Secretary of the Louisiana
Department of Natural Resources in early May

Horace Thibodaux asked Ed Durabb what the next task of the CZM
Advisory Committee was after the public hearing. Ed Durabb said
that once the program received approval, an administrator would
be selected and that he or she would meet with the CAM Advisory
Committee to iron out the details of how the committee would
function in the permit review process. This would probably be
in August or September.

There being no further comment or discussion on the CZM Program,
a motion was made by Windell Curole seconded by Ted Falgout to
adjourn the meeting. The motion caried 6 - 0.

Edwin J. Durabb
Planning Director

264

UNITED PARTNERSHIP
CKB & ASSOCIATES, INC
GENERAL PARTNER

April 25, 1983

Mr. Edwin J. Durabb, Planning Director
Post Office Drawer 1236
Thibodaux, Louisiana 70302

Re: Lafourche Parish Coastal
Zone Management Program
Dear Mr Durabb:

Confirming our comments at the Lafourche Parish Public
Hearing at Galliano, Louisiana regarding the Lafourche
Parish Revised Draft Coastal Zone Management Program, we
as General Partner, manage Section 39, T16S, R21E, Lafourche
Parish, Louisiana, known as the Grand Temple Shell Bank,
which is owned by OKC Limited Partnership. This property
may fall within the Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Manage-
ment Program. We understand that a strip of land along-
Lake Salvador and Bayou Des Allemands, approximately 100 along
yards wide, was exluded from the 16 units of the Lafourche
Parish current coastal zone management program and that it
may be included within future management units.

We request an opportunity to review and comment on any
management plan affecting Section 39, T16S R21E.

Yours very truly,

A. H. Honeycutt
Real Estate Manager
CKS & Associates, Inc.
General Partner

AHH:vll

265

'AM K 2 2 21 27A NEW ORLEANS, LA. 70130 . 304/525-1220

LAFOURCHE PARISH COUNCIL
DICH EGLE . PARISH PRESIDENT

APRIL 26, 1983

Mr. A. H. Honeycutt
CKB & Associates, Inc.
505 K & B Plaza
New Orleans, LA 70130

Dear Mr. Honeycutt:

This letter is to confirm the receipt of your comment letter re-
regarding the Lafourche Parish Coastal Zone Management Program.

I have already mailed to you a copy of the minutes of the program As I stated at the public hearing, we currently have established
public hearing which was held on Aapril 20, 1983 at the Greater
Lafourche Port Commission Building in Galliano, Lousisiana.

As I state at the public hearing, we currently have established
no environmental management units or policies for the area with
which you are concerned. When adjoining parishes have completed
their CZM programs, we will look at their policies for their
e.m.u.'s that border our parish from the Tisamond Foret Canal to
the parish line. If we feel that their policies adequately
address the concerns of coastal zone management that our program
represents, we will adopt their policies for the narrow 100 yard
strip of land that comprises our CZM boundary in the central and
northern Lafourche area. If we feel that the other parish poli-
cies are not adequate for our needs, we will set our own policies
and divide the area into e.m.u.'s as we did for the rest of our
coastal zone.

As per your request, I will inform you as to exactly what course
we will take and provide you with a copy of whatever policies are
developed for this area.

P. O. Drawer 1236 . Thibodaux, Louisiana 70302 . 504-446-8427

514CI' a.Z 77e Z:C' Ci ZS
at e 3. 's
zorle will -CI-Z@: !:.ea.

7cu ".131--e --else ee- -=ee -@c coa-taclc me 3-

ou ar

S' a c q r S-
LAZOURCHE P*i-Z- _7*15F 'C0YulN'c-j.T-'
417

Z dw, _4LJ1) ux- a.o b
2 1. a ain- -4-71 e c i: a

267

By COLLEY CHARPENTER
The Daily Comet

A public hearing on a 400 page management plan to regulate construction and other activities in Lafourche's coastal wetlands
is scheduled for 7 p.m. Wednesday at the Greater Lafourche Port Commission Building in Gallano.
The Coastal Zone Management Ordinaces is scheduled to be enacted by the parish council at its April 28 meeting unless questions are
raised at Wednesday's public hearing.
The ordinance would allow the parrish's Coastal Zone Management Advisory Commision to regulate activities in the coastal marshes
Ahrough a permitting program. The of the regulations is to control problems of erosion and salt water intrusion.
At the current rule of erosion the parish annually loses more than 6 1/2 square miles of land to erosion and soil subsidance
officials estimate the entire parish will be swallowed up by the Gulf of Mexico within 265 years.
Advisory panel members hope a system of regulating development in fragile coastal zone will not only slow erosion but protect
the valuable wildlife and fisheries dependento on the parish's estuary systems. Statewide those fisheries account for more
than $200 million of the states economy.
Parish planner Ed Durabb at a recent presentation to the parish council, said the ordinance would not prohibit any activities
in the marshes, but regulate those activities so they have the least dangering effect to the coastal environment. A system of
mitigation will be installed, allowing construction in the wetlands in return for measures which will help preserve
the delicate environment. Durabb said the ordinance would primarly affect all and gas exploration and drilling activities in the
marshes. That exploration requires extensive dredging and construction, which hastens both salt water intrusion and erosion
If the ordinance is officials said they will review eadh dredging permit application individually to minimize its effect
on the marshlands.
Already the CZM commitee has divided the coastal zone, that south of the Intracoastal Canal, into 17 management units, each
with specific goals and objectives.
Currently regulation of the Coastal Zone is performed through the state CZM authority, but the Legislature in 1978 gave parishes the
authority is enact their own regulations.
For the past 22 months the parish advisory commission has been reviewing the draft regulations and establishing policies for each
management unit.
The parish pla must be approved by the stat before it can be enacted, but the state officials have commended the Lafourche Parish
program and have recommended other parshes use it as a model m developing their own CZM programs.

~ ~

Erosion

Environmental managment units, each ` Continued from Page 1
of them with policies regulating plan, the state will use the local
activities in that area. Within each and recommendations
of the areas, he said the regulations from the parish commitee
set more specific guidelines to ad- granting coastal use permits
dress problems in that area.
For 2 months, the advisory
committee looked at each of the
management units to set policies
established in the regulations.
Durabb said the was
composed of persons whose
business are related to the coastal
one area and were familar with
each of the area discussed by the
board.
Ted Faigour executive director of
the Greater La Pert Com-
mission and a member of the
committee, said the regulations
were not aimed at blocking con-
sruction in the coastal zone.
"We don't say you cant do things,
We just say how you can do it,"
Faigout said.
He said a process of m
was set up under the ordiance
which allows the CM committes to
require a firm doing construction in
one area to make improvements at
the site or elsewhere to offset the
effects of the construction.
"You can't stop coastal erosion."
said Mark Daire. Lafourche
fisheries agent and committee
member. "But we're trying to slow
it down."
Durabb said the only way to offset
erosion was to reintroduce fresh
water and river suits to the marshes
to begin a rebuilding process. He
said the state is funding pilot
programs to study the effectiveness
of fresh water diversion. But even
with that, he said there must be a
program to regulate the forces
hastening te erosion process.
Perry Giscizir, parish councilman
from Gaillano and also a member of
the commitee, said the parish faces
2 June 30 deadlines to submit the plan
to the state for approval.
Phil Pittman, stats CZM ad-
ministrator, said he anticipated
problems in winning state approval
of the management plan. If the
Larourche draft was "without a
doubt the best comprehensive
plan" submitted by any parish in the
state.
In fact he said the Larourche
draft is being used as a mode in
other parishes now drafting a CZM
proposal.
Pitman said the state would
continue to regulate major consci
construction projects as it now does
under the state CZM act passed.
However, when the parish
approval of the local management
Levee
continued from Page 1

I loollilloillim
-1 3 6668-14103 8523